T>eus  Lux  Mea 

The 

Boyhood  Consciousness  of  Christ 

A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION  OF  LUKE  ii.  49 
dissertation 

SUBMITTED  TO   THE    FACULTY   OF   SACRED   SCIENCES   AT   THE 
CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA   IN  PARTIAL  FUL- 
FILLMENT   OF    THE     REQUIREMENTS    FOR 
THE  DOCTORATE  IN  THEOLOGY 

BY    THE 

REV.  PATRICK  JOSEPH  TEMPLE,  S.T.L. 

OF  THE  ARCHDIOCESE  OF  NEW  YORK 


UC-NRLF 


mew  l^orfe 
THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

1922 


EXCHANGE 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/boyhoodconsciousOOtemprich 


THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS 
OF  CHRIST 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK  •    BOSTON   •    CHICAGO 
DALLAS  •  ATLANTA   •   SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON   •    BOMBAY   •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OP  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


T>EUS  Lux  MEA 

The 

Boyhood  Consciousness  of  Christ 

A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION  OF  LUKE  ii.  49 
'Dissertation 

SUBMITTED  TO   THE    FACULTY   OF   SACRED   SCIENCES   AT   THE 
CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA  IN  PARTIAL  FUL- 
FILLMENT   OF    THE     REQUIREMENTS    FOR 
THE  DOCTORATE  IN  THEOLOGY 

BY   THE 

REV.  PATRICK  JOSEPH  TEMPLE,  S.T.L. 

OF  THE  ARCHDIOCESE  OF  NEW  YORK 


» •   •     ii.  ;  •»  . 

»••  »     * »    .  » •••  *  -\  * 


IRew  Korfe 
THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

1922 


mtbtl  ©bstat 

ABTHURUS  J.  SCANLAN,  S.T.D. 

Censor  Librorum 

•ffrnprimatur  *<2rT  ^ 

4-PATRITIUS  J.  HAYES,  D.D.  y<t\ 

Archiepiscopus  Neo-Eboraci 

New  York,  June  2,  19122 


COPTHIGHT,   1922, 

Bt  the  macmillan  company. 


Set  up  and  printed.     Published  June,  1022. 


^^QX^kA^c^A^c 


■ 


PRINTED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 


PREFACE 

Ever  since  Christianity  presented  itself  for  aeceptance 
mankind,  questions  of  Christology  have  held  a  foremost  place 
religious  research  and  discussion,  and  necessarily  so,  since  t 
nature  and  personality  of  the  Author  of  a  religion  claiming  to 
ecumenical  and  exclusive  compel  the  attentive  study  of  m 
interested  in  religious  thought  and  life.  The  present  generati 
has  not  been  an  exception  in  regard  to  the  importance  attach 
to  these  fundamental  questions.  Rather,  in  this  respect  it  has  i 
a  new  highwater  mark.  For  while  the  fifth  century  is  genera 
regarded  as  the  golden  age  of  christological  controversy,  yet,  fr< 
the  point  of  view  of  the  number  and  variety  of  the  scholars  int 
ested  and  of  the  individuality  and  diversity  of  the  results  reach 
the  last  half  century  has  had  no  parallel  in  the  history  of  Chi 
tianity. 

In  these  questions  of  Christology  the  ultimate  determina 
the  final  test  to  which  every  student  must  come,  is  Christ's  o1 
mind  as  expressed  in  His  words  and  in  His  manner  of  actii 
everything  that  He  says  or  does,  either  directly  or  indirectly 
reveal  His  self -consciousness,  is  of  the  first  importance;  whate^ 
be  the  method  pursued  in  attempting  a  solution  of  a  christologi 
problem,  one  cannot  evade  the  query,  What  did  He  say  about  Hi 
self?  Then,  closely  connected  with  the  questions  of  His  s< 
consciousness  is  that  of  its  origin.  When  and  how  did  it  begi 
Did  He  possess  it  from  His  earliest  years?  Or  was  there  for  Hi 
as  for  every  normal  child,  a  gradual  unfolding  of  reason  and  of  \ 
consciousness  of  His  relation  to  God?  Or  was  it  only  in  mati 
manhood,  when  on  the  threshold  of  His  public  career,  that  1 
consciousness  of  His  mission  and  all  that  it  implied  flashed  up 
Him?  Or  was  its  coming  rather  like  that  of  dawning  day,  at  fi 
dim,  then  steadily  growing  into  fulness  of  light  and  culminati 
in  the  brilliant  clarity  of  the  noonday? 

v 

T- 


vi  PREFACE 

These  important  questions  constitute  one  of  the  most  popular 
of  modern  problems  of  the  life  of  Christ.  Speaking  generally,  in 
non-Catholic  circles  it  is  held  that  Jesus  began  His  life  "ignorant 
of  His  nature  and  destiny,  an  unthinking  infant";1  that  at  a  cer- 
tain point,  by  no  means  agreed  upon,  His  consciousness  dawned 
upon  Him,  and  that  it  was  subject  to  growth  and  development. 
And  many  pages  of  modern  works  are  given  over  to  the  attempt 
to  explain  naturally  the  origin  and  to  trace  the  development  of 
Jesus'  consciousness.  The  result  has  been  a  great  diversity  of 
opinion,  as  a  glance  at  the  chapter  on  the  modern  views  will  show. 
Failure  to  agree  on  so  important  a  question  affecting,  as  it  does, 
our  conception  of  Him  for  the  first  thirty  years  of  His  life,  should 
arouse  grave  concern,  and  any  effort  to  eliminate  diversity  and  to 
establish  the  truth  cannot  be  altogether  unwelcome. 

As  in  all  questions  of  theological  import,  so  regarding  the  pres- 
ent one,  the  final  court  of  appeal  is  for  the  Catholic,  the  authority 
of  the  Church.  But  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  him  any  more 
than  another  student  from  envisaging  the  consciousness  of  Christ 
as  a  scientific  problem  as  well,  to  be  treated  according  to  the  laws 
of  historical  criticism;  and  when  so  approached  the  solution  is 
to  be  found  along  one  path,  the  careful  investigation  of  the  his- 
torical evidence.  But,  unfortunately  we  are  confronted  by  the 
fact  that  the  historical  data  for  the  problem  are  meager,  wherefore 
there  is  all  the  more  necessity  for  exceptionally  careful  scrutiny. 
The  canonical  Gospels  preserve  only  one  saying  of  Christ  outside 
His  public  ministry.  The  only  occasion  when  Jesus  breaks  the 
silence  of  the  first  thirty  years  of  His  life  is  when  in  answer  to  His 
mother's  question,  why  He  had  tarried  in  Jerusalem  and  caused 
the  "parents"  three  days  of  anxiety  and  sorrow,  He  said  in  boyish 
accent:  "Why  did  you  seek  me?  Did  you  not  know  that  in  the 
(things)  of  My  Father  I  must  be?"  (T(  <kt  ^tqtsits  jjls;  otix.  ?)Bsits 
ori  iv  tck<;  tou  Uwzpiq  \lou  8st  elvat  (jls;  Luke  ii.  49.)  This  saying  of 
the  twelfth  year,  in  which  His  relation  to  God  is  expressed  by  the 
phrase,  "My  Father,"  is  the  all-important  one  for  the  problem  of 
the  origin  and  development  of  Jesus'  consciousness.  Views  and 
theories  must  be  based  on  it.  In  addition  to  the  fact  that  it  fur- 
nishes the  saying  in  which  a  certain  relationship  to  God  is  ex- 
1  Ramsay,  The  Education  of  Christ,  31. 


PREFACE  vii 

pressed,  the  narrative  of  the  "lost"  Christ  in  the  Temple  deserves 
close  attention  for  other  reasons.  It  not  only  represents  Him 
both  in  His  words  and  in  His  actions  as  taking  a  certain  attitude 
towards  His  "parents,"  but  as  with  a  few  strokes  of  a  brush,  it 
also  depicts  an  occurrence  among  the  learned  Rabbis  of  Jerusalem. 
These,  too,  deserve  close  attention  because  they  reflect  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  twelve-year-old  Christ.  The  present  work  is  an 
attempt  to  examine  critically  all  the  elements  of  the  Gospel  inci- 
dent, in  particular  the  words  of  the  Boy  Jesus,  to  see  if  they  consti- 
tute the  solid  basis  for  a  theory  of  His  consciousness. 

Throughout  the  work  a  term  is  used  which  needs  exact  defini- 
tion. Because  of  the  variety  of  content  given  in  the  modern 
world  to  the  title  "Son  of  God"  as  applied  to  Christ,  and  to  the 
corresponding  term,  Divine  Sonship,  I  have  decided  for  the  sake 
of  clearness  to  use  the  term,  real  Divine  Sonship,  in  the  sense  of 
metaphysical  Divine  Sonship,  that  is,  the  identity  of  the  ego  in 
Jesus  with  the  Second  Person  of  the  Blessed  Trinity,  the  only- 
begotten  Son  of  God,  the  eternal  Word  made  flesh. 

There  remains  the  pleasing  duty  to  express  sincere  thanks  to 
all  who  have  helped  me;  to  Dr.  Henry  Schumacher,  Professor  of 
New  Testament  in  the  Catholic  University,  who  supervised  the 
work;  to  Dr.  Franz  Coeln,  Professor  of  Sacred  Scripture,  and  to 
Dr.  Charles  F.  Aiken,  Professor  of  Apologetics,  for  valuable  sug- 
gestions; to  Dr.  Edwin  Ryan  of  New  York,  for  carefully  reading 
and  correcting  the  manuscript  before  it  reached  the  printer; 
and  to  Mr.  A.  S.  Freidus,  Chief  of  the  Jewish  Division  of  the  New 
York  Public  Library,  through  whose  kind  assistance  much  im- 
portant literature  was  procured. 

The  Author. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

SECTION  I 
EARLY  PERIOD  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  QUESTION 

CHAPTER 

I.  The  Fathers  on  Luke  ii.  49  page 

1.  The  Greek  Fathers 3 

2.  The  Latin  Fathers 10 

II.  Other  Evidence  of  the  View  of  the  Early  Church 

1.  Further  Evidence  in  the  Fathers  and  Texts    ...       13 

2.  The  Apocryphal  Gospels  of  the  Childhood      ...       18 
HI.    Conflicting  Heretical  Opinions 23 

SECTION  n 
LATER  PERIOD  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  QUESTION 

IV.  From  the  Fathers  to  the  Rise  of  Modern  Rationalism 

1.  From  the  Eighth  to  the  Twelfth  Century  ....       29 

2.  From  the  Thirteenth  to  the  Eighteenth  Century       .       32 

V.  The  Modern  Views 

1.  "Ordinary  Israelitic  Consciousness" 38 

2.  "Special  Ethical  Sonship" 41 

3.  "Mere  Messianic  Consciousness" 43 

4.  "Real  Divine  Sonship" 45 

section  m 

PRELIMINARY  QUESTIONS 

VI.    The  Correct  Text  of  Luke  ii.  49 53 

VH.    The  Historical  Trustworthiness  of  Luke  ii.  49 

1.  Luke's  Early  Chapters 60 

2.  The  Temple  Episode 65 

VIH.    The  Historical  Background  of  Luke  ii.  49 

1.  Circumstances  Leading  to  the  Utterance  of  Jesus' 

First  Recorded  Saying 73 

2.  Contemporary  Jewish  Conception  of  God's  Relation 

to  Man 81 

iz 


x  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

SECTION  IV 
CHRIST'S  CONSCIOUSNESS  AS  EXPRESSED  IN  LUKE  n.  49 

CHAPTER 

IX.    Real  Divine  Sonship  Expressed  in  the  First  Recorded 

Words  page 

1.  The  Study  of  the  Words  "My  Father''        ...       91 

2.  The  Other  Words  of  the  Text 98 

3.  The  Contrast  with  the  Preceding  Verse        .      .      .     104 

X.    Messianic  Consciousness  Included  in  Christ's  First 

Self-Interpretation 114 

SECTION  V 
JESUS'   FIRST  RECORDED   WORDS  AND   THE   IMMEDIATE 

CONTEXT 

XL    The  Scene  Among  the  Doctors 

1.  Word  Scrutiny  of  Luke  ii.  47,  48  (a) 121 

2.  Explanation  of  Luke  ii.  46 .      .     128 

XII.    The  "Parents"  and  the  "Son" 

1.  Their  Attitude  towards  Each  Other 135 

2.  The  Morality  of  the  Temple  Episode 143 

XIII.    The  Christ  Child's  "Wisdom"  and  "Grace" 

1.  Study  of  Luke  ii.  40  and  52 151 

2.  A  Significant  Silence  in  These  Verses 161 

SECTION  VI 
JESUS'   FIRST   RECORDED   WORDS  AND   THE   REMOTE 

CONTEXT 

XIV.    The  Whole  Lucan  Account  of  Christ 

1.  The  Infancy  Section 169 

2.  The  Beginning  of  the  Ministry 171 

3.  The  Public  Life .  177 

4.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 179 

XV.    The  Whole  New  Testament  Account  of  Christ 

1.  St.  Matthew 182 

2.  St.  Mark 183 

3.  St.  John 185 

4.  St.  Paul 187 

5.  Christ's  Sonship  in  the  New  Testament     ....  188 

Conclusion 192 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  xi 

PAGE 

Bibliography 

I.    List  of  works  quoted 199 

II.    Selected  list  on  Christ's  Consciousness  in  Boyhood  221 

III.    Treatises  on  the  Infancy  and  Boyhood  of  Christ  .      .  222 

List  of  Abbreviations  for  Periodicals  and  Collections     .     .  229 

Scriptural  Index 231 

General  Index 239 


SECTION  I 

EARLY  PERIOD  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF 
THE  QUESTION 


>      J  5       1 


THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS 
OF  CHRIST 

CHAPTER  I 
THE  FATHERS  ON  LUKE  ii.  49 

1.    THE  GREEK  FATHERS 

The  earliest  Father  whose  writings  contain  a  reference  to  the 
episode  of  Christ's  twelfth  year  is  Irenaeus  (►£#02).  He  com- 
plains against  Marcion  for  discarding  the  early  section  of  St. 
Luke's  Gospel,1  and  mentions  among  the  important  things,  with 
which  Luke  has  made  us  acquainted  in  regard  to  Christ,  "that  at 
twelve  years  of  age  He  was  left  behind  at  Jerusalem."  2 

There  is  another  reference  of  Irenaeus*  of  more  importance. 
He  narrates  that  the  Marcosians  used  a  great  number  of  apocryphal 
and  spurious  writings,  which  they  forged  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
that  the  Father  of  Jesus  was  unknown  up  to  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  was  not  the  Creator  of  the  Universe.  And  "among  other 
things  they  bring  forward  that  false  and  wicked  story  which  nar- 
rates that  Our  Lord,  when  He  was  a  Boy  learning  His  letters,  on 
the  teacher  saying  to  Him,  as  is  usual,  'Pronounce  Alpha/  replied 
(as  He  was  bid)  'Alpha.'  But  when  again  the  teacher  bade  Him 
say,  'Beta,'  the  Lord  replied,  'Do  thou  first  tell  Me  what  Alpha  is, 
and  then  I  will  tell  thee  what  Beta  is.'  This  they  expound  as 
meaning  that  He  alone  knew  the  Unknown,  which  He  revealed 
under  its  type,  Alpha."3  Mark  that  Irenaeus  labels  the  story 
"false  and  wicked,"  but  does  not  object  to  the  view  that  at  such 
an  early  age  Christ  did  know  and  reveal  His  Father. 

1  Adv.  Haer.  III.  14,  4;  cf.  I.  27,  2. 
8  Id.  Haer.  III.  14,3. 

1  Adv.  Haer.  I.  20, 1,  English  Transl.,  A-NF  I.  344-345. 
8 


4       THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Irenaeus  goes  on  to  say  that  these  heretics  also  colored  some  of 
the  Gospel  texts  with  their  views;  such  as  the  answer  Jesus  gave 
to  His  mother  when  He  was  twelve  years  of  age,  and  he  adds, 
ov  oijx  jjfSeicrav,  <paai,  Uaiiga  xaTifJYsXXsv  aikots.1  According  to 
this  statement  we  see  that  this  very  early  sect  understood  that 
Christ's  words  announced  His  Father,  —  for  them  the  God  un- 
known and  different  from  the  creator  of  the  universe.  This  con- 
tention of  theirs,  Irenaeus  opposes;  but  he  does  not  censure  them 
for  saying  that  Christ's  words  announced  God  to  be  His  Father. 

The  three  homilies  (XVIII.  XIX.  and  XX.  in  Luc.)  of  Origen 
(►£#54),  that  have  reference  to  Luke  ii.  49  (excepting  a  few  frag- 
ments preserved  in  the  original)  have  come  down  to  us  only  in  St. 
Jerome's  Latin  translation.  He  uses  the  text  to  refute  the  heretics 
who  say  that  "the  Law  and  the  Prophets  did  not  belong  to  the 
Father  of  Jesus  Christ."  He  argues  thus:  "Certe  Jesus  in  templo 
erat,  quod  a  Solomone  constructum  erat,  et  confitetur  templum 
illud  patris  sui  esse  quern  nobis  revelavit,  cujus  filium  esse  se 
dixit."  If  it  is  replied  that  one  is  a  good  and  the  other  is  a  just 
God,  Origen  rejoins  "quia  igitur  Salvator  Creatoris  est  Filius,  in 
commune  Patrem  Filiumque  laudemus,  cujus  lex  cujus  et  templum 
est."  2  It  is  clear  from  this  how  Origen  understood  Christ's  Son- 
ship:  Father  and  Son  are  equal:  "in  commune  ..." 

The  same  idea  expressed  above  is  contained  in  a  Greek  frag- 
ment generally  attributed  to  him,3  where  in  an  argument  against 
the  contention  of  the  Valentinians,  that  the  Father  of  Christ  was 
not  the  Creator  or  God  of  the  Law  or  of  the  Temple,  Origen  writes 
that  Jesus  was  in  his  own  (rjv  h  (B(oi<;  6  Xgiatbc)  when  He  said, 
"Did  you  not  know,  etc."  The  Temple  belonged  to  Jahweh,  and 
in  it  Christ  could  not  be  said  to  be  "in  His  own,"  unless  He  was 
really  the  Son  of  God;  unless  God  the  Creator  was  really  the 
Father  of  Christ,  6  sovftp  tou  Xpiorou.    Therefore  Origen  under- 

i  M.PG  VII.  653. 

2  M.PG  XIII.  1849  (also  M.PL  XXVI.  260). 

»  M.PG  XIII.  1852  note.  This  has  also  been  ascribed  to  St.  Cyril  of  Alex, 
(v.  g.  by  St.  Thomas,  Catena  aurea,  ad  loc.  Corderius  attributes  it  to  Cyril 
and  Geometra,  Catena  LXV.  Pat.  Gr.  74).  See  M.PG  LXXII.  509,  note.  We 
give  it  under  Origen  because  it  agrees  with  his  thought  and  applies  to  the 
heretics  against  whom  he  was  contending.  Besides  it  is  not  at  all  like  the  style  of 
Cyril,  and  it  is  not  given  by  J.  Sickenberger  in  Fragmente  des  Cyrill  von  Alex,  zum 
Lukasevangelium,  Leipzig  (1909)  (TU  XXXI.  B.  Ht.  I.  p.  65  ff.). 


THE  FATHERS  ON  LUKE  ii.  49  5 

stood  Christ  to  express  real  Divine  Sonship  (we  mean  eternal, 
natural,  Divine  Sonship).  Hence  it  was  that  this  text  supplied 
him  with  a  powerful  argument  against  those  who  denied  that 
Jesus'  Father  was  the  God  of  the  Old  Law  and  of  the  Temple. 
So  that  he  emphatically  states  (according  to  the  Latin  version) 
"taking  the  text  simply  (simpliciter  sentientes),  we  are  thus  armed 
against  all  heretics  who  deny  this.  Behold,  the  Father  is  declared 
to  be  the  God  of  the  Temple  (ecce  Pater  Deus  templi  asseritur) 
hence  blush  for  shame  all  who  accept  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke  and 
who  despise  what  is  written  therein."  1 

The  great  exegete  goes  on  to  give  the  typical  sense,  which  was 
characteristic  of  the  school  of  Alexandria.  He  expresses  the 
opinion  that  what  the  "parents"  did  not  understand  in  Christ's 
words  was  what  was  typified  by  the  material  temple;  namely, 
every  good  and  perfect  man  who  is  the  possession  of  the  Father 
and  has  Jesus  within  him.2  Even  in  this  allegorical  interpretation 
he  emphasizes  the  equality  of  Father  and  Son  and  attributes  a 
Divine  self-consciousness  to  Christ. 

Titus  of  Bostra  (^374)  is  very  clear  and  direct  in  his  interpre- 
tation. He  paraphrases  Jesus' words  thus :  "Dost  thou  not  know, 
mother,  what  has  happened?  Didst  thou  not  conceive  as  a  virgin 
(ou  xap8ivo<;  o5aa  auv£Xa/3e<;)?  Why  do  you  name  Joseph  My 
Father?"3  So  he  sees  the  words  "My  Father"  in  Jesus'  reply, 
contrasted  with  "thy  Father"  in  Mary's  question,  and  evidently, 
referring  to  the  contrast  he  goes  on  to  say:  xal  etaafei  Hcczigtx  dvzl 
Tzaczghs,  ivut  tou  Gpetpa^iivou  <jo)yiaTtxa)<;  t&v  c&T)6tv6v.  This  explicit 
inference,  "in  place  of  His  foster  father,  He  brings  forward  the 
true  Father,"  places  it  beyond  doubt  that  Titus  understood 
"Father"  on  Jesus'  lips  in  the  real  sense  of  the  word.  He  is  of  the 
opinion,  strange  to  say,  that  Jesus  did  not  say,  ofix  o?8ore  (in  the 
plural),  for  they  all  did  not  know;  but  He  addresses  only  the 
Mother  who  alone  knew  of  the  mystery  of  the  Virgin  Birth.4 

1  M.PG  XIII.  1851-1852. 

2  M.PG  XIII.  1852.    Cf .  Schola  in  Lucam,  Supplem.,  M.PG  XVII.  324. 

3  Titus  von  Bostra,  edit,  by  J.  Sickenberger,  152,  given  in  TU  (2d  ser.)  6  (XXI). 

4  Id.  What  is  ascribed  to  Titus  of  Bostra  in  Magna  Bibliotheca  Veterum  Patrum 
(Colon.  Agripp.  1618),  and  often  quoted  for  him,  does  not  belong  to  him.  This  is  a 
Catena-like  compilation  and  "cannot  be  of  an  earlier  date  than  the  sixth  century" 
(Bardenhewer,  Patrol.  271).  The  following  is  given  under  our  text  (Tom.  IV.  343) : 
"Deus  et   Dominus  noster  humana  responsione,   quam  dare  licebat  repudiata, 


6        THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

In  his  catechetical  lectures,  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (>^386), 
takes  up  the  different  articles  of  the  Creed;  and  in  the  seventh 
instruction  treating  of  "The  Father,"  he  says:  "Let  us  adore  the 
Father  of  Christ,  the  Creator  of  the  world,  the  God  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  to  whose  honor  the  temple  was  built.  For 
we  shall  not  tolerate  the  heretics  who  sever  the  Old  Testament  from 
the  New,  but  shall  believe  Christ's  saying  concerning  the  temple, 
"Did  you  not  know  that  I  must  be  in  the  (things)  of  My  Father?" 
With  this,  Cyril  joins  the  text,  "Take  these  things  hence  and  make 
not  the  house  of  My  Father  a  house  of  traffic"  (John  ii.  16),  and 
concludes  that  in  these  words  Christ  "most  clearly  confessed  that 
the  former  Temple  in  Jerusalem  was  the  house  of  His  own  Father" 
(tou  eauxou  Ilaxp^c;).1  This  word  "own"  (ktxuzou)  indicates  that 
the  author  considered  the  relationship  to  God,  expressed  by  Christ, 
to  be  special  and  peculiar;  indeed  the  whole  context  of  this  entire 
section  on  "The  Father"  is  evidence  that  he  held  the  view  of  real 
Divine  Sonship. 

Didymus  of  Alexandria,  (4-395)  in  quoting  Luke  ii.  49,  has  iv 
Tip  o¥x(pfor  iv  toi<;  (De  Trinitate,  III.  20) .2  He  does  not  give  any 
comment;  but  the  view  of  real  Divine  Sonship  is  implied  by  the 
context;  for  treating  here  of  Christ  being  subject  to  His  parents, 
Didymus  points  out  it  was  done  freely  and  that  thereby  Christ 
did  not  lay  aside  His  royal  dignity  but  rather  shows  the  sublimity 
of  His  Deity  (Betxvuq  t6  uxipoyxov  tyjs  6£6ttjt;o<;). 

There  is  abundant  evidence  in  the  writings  of  St.  Epiphanius 
(►J403)  to  show  his  interpretation  of  Luke  ii.  49.  Like  St.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  he  joins  the  text  with  the  words  "take  these  things 
hence  and  make  not  the  house  of  My  Father  a  house  of  traffic,"  to 
prove  against  heretics  that  the  God  of  the  Old  Law  is  the  Father 
of  Jesus; 3   like  Irenaeus,  he  gives  it  as  one  of  the  passages  into 

divinam  attulit  minime  obscure,  per  illam  ostendens,  se  Deura  esse  came  obtec- 
tum.  Nam  cum  Deipara  Virgo  Josephum  qui  vulgo  parens  illius  habebatur,  pa- 
trem  illius  appellasset  ipse  sermonem  ita  excepit,  ut  templi  Dominum  hie 
est  Deum  non  autem  Josephum  patrem  suum  esse  planum  faceret.  Quandoquidem 
cum  in  Dei  templo,  Nesciebatis,  inquit,  quod  in  his  .  .  ."  In  the  quotation,  the  con- 
trast in  Christ's  words  is  pointed  out  and  the  view  of  real  Divine  Sonship  is  clearly 
interpreted. 

1  M.PG  XXXIII.  612. 

2  M.PG  XXXIX.  896. 

3  Adv.  Haer.  Lib.  II.  Tom.  2,  Haer.  63,  M.PG  XLII.  93. 


THE  FATHERS  ON  LUKE  ii.  49  7 

which  heretics  read  their  doctrine  that  the  Father  of  Christ  was  an 
unknown  God.1  Refuting  the  doctrine  of  the  Ebionites,  that 
"Christ"  came  upon  the  man  Jesus  only  in  His  thirtieth  year 
when  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  Him  in  the  form  of  a  dove, 
Epiphanius  brings  forward  many  arguments  from  the  infancy 
narrative  to  show  that  "Christ  was  God  and  Man  immediately 
from  His  birth  of  the  Virgin  Mary."  2  In  this  argument  he  appeals 
to  what  is  narrated  of  the  twelfth  year  about  Christ  sitting  among 
the  priests  and  elders,  and  to  His  reply  to  His  Mother.  Concern- 
ing the  latter,  he  says  it  showed  "that  the  Temple  was  erected  to 
the  name  of  God  (that  is  His)  Father,"  GTj^atvwv,  oti  6  vao<;  £?<; 
ovojia  0sou  n<ZTp&<;  q)xo8o(juf)6Y).  "Hence"  (he  argues)  "if  from  His 
very  infancy  He  knew  the  Temple  and  the  Father  (d  xofvuv 
ixo  vtqx(ou  oIBe  tov  vaov  %al  tov  IlaTspa)  Jesus  was  not  born  as  mere 
man  (^tX6q  av0po>xoq)  nor  (only)  after  His  thirtieth  year  when 
the  form  of  a  dove  descended  upon  Him  did  He  call  Himself  Son 
and  Christ,  but  straightway  He  teaches  that  in  the  (things)  of  His 
Father  He  must  be"  (eu6u<;  £v  toT<;  tou  n<XTpo<;  ataou  Bstv  ocutov  elvat 
iSc'Saaxev).3  Epiphanius,  thus,  infers  from  Christ's  words  that  He 
was  not  born  as  mere  man,  and  He  called  Himself  Son  (in  the 
real  sense  since  He  was  not  mere  man)  and  Christ,  before  his  thir- 
tieth year. 

The  same  stand  is  taken  in  another  part  of  his  work.  In  this 
latter  place  Epiphanius  employs  Luke  ii.  49  to  refute  the  conten- 
tion that  the  Holy  Ghost  came  upon  Jesus  only  at  the  time  of 
His  baptism.  He  writes  that  since  Jesus  performed  no  prodigies 
before  the  miracle  of  Cana,  "lest  occasion  would  be  given  to  the 
other  heresies  which  say  that  at  the  Jordan  Christ  came  upon 
Him  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  in  His  twelfth  year,  as  Luke  expressly 
points  out,  disputing  with  the  priests  and  elders,  He  said  to 
His  mother,  'Did  you  not  know  .  .  .  ,'  so  that  there  might  be 
excluded  the  opinion  of  those  who  say  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
descended  upon  Him  after  the  time  of  the  baptism"  (Yva  %iaj] 
b  ~k6yo<;  tgjv  Xsy6vt(ov,  oti  dxo  tou  xP^vou  t°u  @axT(<j[jiaTOs  xarifb] 
e(<;  ccutov  to  nveu^a  t&  aytov).4     Here  we  have  another  indication 

1  Adv.  Haer.  Lib.  I.  Tom.  3,  Haer.  34,  n.  18,  M.PG  XLI.  620. 

2  Adv.  Haer.  Lib.  I.  Tom.  2,  Haer.  30,  n.  29,  M.PG  XLI.  456. 

3  Id.  457. 

4  Adv.  Haer.  Lib.  II.  Tom  1,  Haer.  51,  n.  20,  M.  PG  XLI.  925. 


8       THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

that  Epiphanius  understood  Christ's  words  to  express  real  Divine 
Sonship. 

The  great  defender  of  orthodoxy,  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria 
(►J<  144),  commenting  on  Luke  ii.  49,  explicitly  states  that  "here 
for  the  first  time  He  makes  more  open  mention  of  His  true  Father 
and  reveals  His  Divinity,"  'EvTauGa  ouv  xpwTGx;  tou  ak-qft&q  Hazpbq 
cpavepwTspov  ymjuoveflsi,  xal  xapaYupivoT  ttJv  £auxou  OsdTTQTa.1  He 
goes  on  to  bring  out  the  meaning  of  the  contrast  between  Jesus' 
reply  and  Mary's  question.  "His  mother  had  said,  'Why  hast 
thou  done  this  to  us?'  He  answered,  'Did  you  not  know  that  I 
must  be  in  the  (things)  of  My  Father?'  showing  He  was  more  than 
human  (twv  avOpwxIvwv  £x£x.siva  jjiiipwv  £ocut&v  ovtcc  SstxvDq)  and 
teaching  her  that  she  had  been  made  the  handmaid  of  the  dispen- 
sation in  giving  birth  to  Him  but  that  He  by  nature  and  in  truth 
was  God  and  Son  of  the  Heavenly  Father"  (<p6asc  B£  xal  dXiqOefty 
Qzbq  -rjv,  xai  Tlbq  tou  £v  oupavoT?  ovto<;  Uaipbq).2 

There  can  be  no  question  of  this  writer's  position,  which  is  also 
expressed  in  his  work,  De  recta  fide  ad  Reginas.  When  proving 
from  St.  Luke's  Gospel  that  Christ  is  "the  only  Son  and  Lord," 
St.  Cyril  appeals  to  Luke  ii.  49  as  an  argument  for  his  purpose,  for 
"Christ  named  the  Father  in  heaven  as  His  own  Father,"  '*A0pei 
8t?j  o5v  Sxwq  T&tov  kauiou  Uaiipa  tov  iv  Totq  oupavot<;  6vo^a£ei.3  In 
real  critical  style  Cyril  argues,  "If  He  was  only  man  and  considered 
Himself  no  more  than  we  are  (vooujjisvog  xa8'  T)(xaq)  should  He 
not  have  said,'  Did  you  not  know  that  I  must  be  in  the  (things)  of 
the  Father  of  all?'  but  He  makes  God  His  own  Father  (ccXV  TBiov 
auTou  xoisTtoci),  for  He  alone  was  divinely  born  of  God  according 
to  nature,  and  having  become  man  He  retained  His  own  Father  by 
nature,  God."  4  This  writer,  therefore,  not  only  favors  the  view 
that  Christ  expressed  His  real  Divine  Sonship  and  Divinity  in 
Luke  ii.  49,  but  more  than  this,  he  appeals  to  this  text  as  an  excel- 
lent argument  in  favor  of  his  opinion. 

Cyril's  great  opponent,  Theodoret  of  Cyprus  (►J458),  seems  to 
hold  that,  in  the  first  recorded  words,  the  Boy  Jesus  rebuked  His 

1  In  his  explanation  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  ad  loc.  M.PG  LXXII.  509. 

2  M.PG  LXXII.  509. 

3  M.PG  LXXVI.  1320. 

4  Id. 


THE  FATHERS  ON  LUKE  ii.  49  9 

mother  "as  her  Lord."  l  In  a  work  on  the  Incarnation,  towards 
the  end  of  a  summary  of  the  incidents  of  the  Childhood  account, 
he  writes,  Christ  "attends  at  the  temple,  puts  to  shame  the  Judaic 
dullness,  and  this  when  only  twelve  years  old.  Having  remained 
behind  He  is  found  and  blamed  by  His  mother.  He  defends 
Himself  and  quietly  reveals  His  Divinity  (r\p£\±<x  %u<;  xapaYu^vot 
t^v  0e6TTQTa) ;  'Do  you  not  know,'  says  He,  'that  I  must  be  in  the 
(things)  of  My  Father,'  showing  that  He  is  not  alone  what  He 
appeared  to  the  eyes  to  be,  but  He  is  also  God  (hidden  in  what 
was  seen)  who  proceeded  from  the  Father  before  all  time  and  from 
all  eternity"  (BstxvCx;  ox;  oti  y.6vov  iail  ib  6pwyLsvov,  dXka  v.(xl  8s6c; 
ivT(p  6p(i)tiiv<i>xpuTT6^svo<;,  ux£pxpovo<;  %od  xpoatwvtoq  ix  tou  Hoct- 
pbq  xpoeXGwv).2  From  these  explicit  expressions,  "reveals  His 
Divinity,"  "showing  He  is  not  alone  what  He  appeared  to  the 
eyes  to  be,  but  is  also  God,"  there  cannot  be  any  doubt  that 
Theodoret  infers  from  Christ's  words  strict  Divinity  and  real 
Divine  Sonship.3 

To  the  question,  then,  what  view  the  Greek  Fathers  hold  con- 
cerning the  self-consciousness  of  Christ  as  expressed  in  Luke  ii.  49, 
it  is  to  be  answered  that  they  are  unanimous  in  understanding 
them  as  a  declaration  of  real  Divine  Sonship.  More  than  this, 
they  nearly  all  employ  these  words  to  defend  or  demonstrate  His 
true  Divinity.  Origen  and  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  make  use  of  the  first 
recorded  words  to  refute  the  heretics  who  contended  that  Jesus' 
Father  was  not  the  God  of  the  Old  Law.  Besides  using  them  for 
this  purpose,  Epiphanius  also  wields  them  against  the  Ebionites, 
who  said  that  "  Christ "  came  upon  Jesus  at  the  baptism.  By  these 
words,  Cyril  of  Alexandria  proves  Christ's  Divine  self-conscious- 
ness, pointing  out  that  if  He  thought  Himself  no  more  than  we  are, 
He  would  have  used  different  words;  and  both  he  and  Theodoret 
explicitly  state  that  in  these  words  Christ  revealed  His  Divinity. 

»  M.PG  LXXXIII.  144. 

2  M.PG  LXXXIV.  73.  This  is  found  almost  verbatim  in  a  work  on  the  Incarna- 
tion ascribed  to  St.  Cyril  of  Alex.,  M.PG  LXXV.  1462;  but  the  latter  part  of  St. 
Cyril's  work  has  been  shown  to  be  spurious  and  to  belong  to  Theodoret.  Cf. 
Bardenhewer,  Patrol.,  363.    Here  Christ's  words  are  given  differently. 

3Tischendorf  (Oct.  Maj.  I.  439)  mentions  a  reference  to  Theodoret  as  5,  1063; 
I  have  not  been  able  to  verify  it.  A  spurious  work  "  Dialogus  contra  Macedonianos' ' 
(I.  19),  attributed  both  to  Theodoret  and  Athanasius,  quotes  Lk.  ii.  49,  without  any 
comment  (M.PG  XXVIII.  1324).  The  text  is  given,  kv  t<?  oXkV  .  .  .  Likely, 
this  is  the  reference  cited  by  Tischendorf . 


10     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

2.     THE   LATIN   FATHERS 

In  the  twenty-sixth  chapter  of  his  work,  Adversus  Praxeam, 
when  showing  the  agreement  of  Matthew  and  Luke  with  John  in 
respect  to  the  distinct  personality  of  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
Tertullian  (^250)  mentions  that  Christ,  by  the  first  recorded 
words,  testified  from  His  very  boyhood  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God : 
"His  itaque  rebus  quodcumque  sunt,  spiritu  Dei  et  sermone  et 
virtute,  collatis  in  virginem,  quod  de  ea  nascitur,  Filius  Dei  est. 
Hoc  se  et  in  istis  Evangeliis  ipse  testatur  statim  a  puero;  Non 
scitis,  inquit,  quod  in  Patris  mei  me  esse  oportet?"  l  From  a 
context  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  and  from  the  object  of  this  chapter,  it 
is  clear  that  Tertullian  understood  this  Divine  Sonship,  to  which 
Jesus  testifies  from  His  boyhood,  in  the  real  sense. 

Juvencus,  who,  in  the  year  330  or  thereabouts,  wrote  a  kind  of 
Gospel  harmony  in  hexameter  verse,  renders  Luke  ii.  49  as  follows : 

Ille  autem;  Quid  me  tantum,  quid  quaeritis?  inquit, 
An  nondum  sentis,  genetrix,  quod  iure  paternis 
Sedibus  et  domibus  natum  inhabitare  necesse  est?  2 

Note  that  Juvencus  uses  the  word  "natum"  which  would  not  suit 
moral  Sonship  but  which  points  to  real  Divine  Sonship  as  his  view. 
St.  Ambrose  (Vp397)  sees  in  Jesus'  words  a  reference  to  both  the 
Divine  and  the  human  element  of  Christ  and  implies  the  interpre- 
tation of  real  Divine  Sonship.  After  quoting  the  text  he  adds: 
' 'There  are  two  generations  in  Christ,  one  paternal  and  the  other 
maternal;  the  paternal  is  the  more  divine  (Paterna  ilia  divinior); 
the  maternal  that  which  descended  to  our  labor  and  usage,  and  so 
those  things  which  are  performed  above  nature,  above  age,  above 
custom,  are  to  be  ascribed  not  to  human  powers  but  to  the  divine 
powers  .  .  .  Here  the  mother  is  censured  because  she  demands 
what  is  human"  (hie  mater  arguitur  quia  adhuc  quae  humana  sunt 
exigat)  .3  Ambrose  goes  on  to  point  out  that  even  at  twelve  years 
of  age  Christ  has  disciples,  for  the  mother  learns  from  her  Son: 
"Sed   cum   hie   duodecim   describatur   annorum,   illic   discipulos 

1  M.  PL  II.  189. 

2  Corp.  Script.  Lat.  (edit.  J.  Huemer),  XXIV.  18. 

3  Corp.  Script.  Lat.  (edit.  Schenkl),  XXXII.  75. 


THE  FATHERS  ON  LUKE  ii.  49  11 

habere  doceatur,  vides  matrem  didicisse  de  filio,  ut  exigeret  a 
validiore  ministerium  quae  stupebat  in  iuniore  miraculum."  * 

In  a  homily  (II.  De  concordia  Evangelistarum  Matthaei  et 
Lucae  in  generationibus  Domini,  chap.  10),  Augustine  (»^430) 
writes  concerning  Jesus  first  recorded  saying:  "Hoc  propterea 
dixit,  quia  Filius  Dei  erat  in  templo  Dei.  Templum  enim  illud 
non  erat  Joseph,  sed  Dei."  2  After  this  explicit  interpretation  of 
Divine  Sonship,  further  on  (after  again  quoting  the  text)  he  says 
He  does  not  wish  to  be  their  Son  in  such  a  way  as  He  would  not 
be  understood  to  be  the  Son  of  God:  "Non  enim  sic  se  volebat  esse 
filium  eorum,  ut  non  intelligeretur  Filius  Dei;  Filius  enim  Dei, 
semper  Filius  Dei  creans  illos  ipsos.  Filius  autem  hominis  ex 
tempore,  natus  de  virgine  sine  semine  maritali,  parentem  tamen 
habebat  utrumque."  It  is  plain  he  here  has  in  mind  real  Divine 
Sonship.  In  chapter  12  he  points  out  that  Christ  did  not  deny 
Joseph  the  name  of  father  ("Non  sic  indicat  Patrem  Deum,  ut 
neget  patrem  Joseph")  nor  did  He  mean  to  say  "you  are  not  My 
parents.  But  they  are  his  earthly  parents,  He  the  Eternal 
Father  "  (Vos  non  estis  parentes  mei.  Sed  parentes  illi  temporali- 
ter,  pater  ille  sempiterne.) 3 

Augustine  again  brings  out  the  force  of  the  contrast  in  Christ's 
words  in  another  work,  De  Nuptiis  et  Concupiscentia.  He  gives 
the  mother's  question  and  thus  introduces  Christ's  words:  "At 
ille  ut  ostenderet  habere  se  praeter  illos  patrem,  qui  eum  genuit 
praeter  matrem,  respondit  sic."  4  This  certainly  is  a  clear  and  em- 
phatic interpretation  of  real  Divine  Sonship:  that  Christ  uttered 
this  reply  to  Mary  to  point  out  that  besides  the  parents  He  had  a 
Father  who  begot  Him  without  a  Mother. 

In  a  letter  (Epist.  XVI.  2)  to  the  bishops  of  Sicily,  Leo  the 
Great  (^461)  says  that  Christ's  earliest  recorded  saying  signifies 
"He  was  the  Son  of  Him  to  Whom  also  belonged  the  Temple" 
(significans  ejus  se  esse  filium  cujus  esset  et  templum).5  This 
indicates  that  Leo  understands  real  Divine  Sonship. 

1  Erasmus,  Biblia  Critica,  VI.  265  (cf.  also  Albertus  Magnus,  Comment,  ad 
loc;  Opera  omnia,  VII.  256)  interchanges  "miraculum"  and  "ministerium"  to  suit 
the  sense. 

2  M.PL  XXXVIII.  342-343. 
a  M.PL  XXXVIII.  343. 

4  Corp.  Script.  Lat.  (edit.  Vrba  and  Zycha),  XLII.  225. 
6  M.PL  LIV.  697. 


12     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

The  conclusion  from  this  patristic  study  is,  that  the  Fathers 
are  unanimous  in  the  view  that  Jesus  at  twelve  years  of  age 
revealed  His  real  Divine  Sonship;  the  Latin  Fathers  are  clear 
and  explicit  on  the  point,  and  the  Greeks  go  beyond  this,  nearly 
all  using  the  text,  Luke  ii.  49,  to  defend  or  demonstrate  Christ's 
true  Divinity. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  those  who  understand  fv  toI<;  as 
"house,"  e.g.,  Origen,  Juvencus,  take  the  side  of  the  common 
opinion.  And  these  Fathers  quoted  above  represented  different 
times,  different  countries  (Alexandria,  Jerusalem,  North  Africa, 
Rome,  etc.),  different  schools,  indeed  hostile  camps,  e.g.,  Cyril 
of  Alexandria  and  Theodoret.  Moreover,  they  use  quite  different 
ways  to  express  their  views,  thereby  proving  their  independence 
and  indicating  that  they  are  voicing  tradition. 

The  Fathers'  explicit  inferences  of  real  Divine  Sonship  from 
Christ's  words  become  all  the  more  remarkable  in  the  light  of 
the  fact,  that  but  few  of  them  had  occasion  to  give  more  than 
passing  notice  to  the  Gospel  text.  On  account  of  this,  we  need  not 
expect  to  find  brought  out  by  them  everything  that  is  therein 
implied.  Yet  at  least  three  of  them  indicate  that  in  Christ's  words 
is  conveyed  a  contrast  to  the  words  His  mother  had  just  uttered; 
Titus  of  Bostra  sees  "My  Father"  opposed  to  "thy  Father"; 
and  Cyril  of  Alexandria  and  Augustine  bring  out  the  force  of  the 
contrast  between  the  heavenly  Fatherhood  and  the  earthly 
parentage. 


CHAPTER  II 

OTHER  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  VIEW  OF  THE 
EARLY  CHURCH 

1.  FURTHER  EVIDENCE  IN  THE  FATHERS  AND  TEXTS 

Besides  the  direct  statements  of  the  Fathers  on  Luke  ii.  49, 
given  in  the  previous  chapter,  other  evidence  can  be  furnished 
which  would  imply  the  view  expressly  taken  by  those  already  men- 
tioned. How  the  Boy  Christ's  expression  of  Divine  Sonship  was 
understood,  would  be  implied  by  assertions  of  Christ's  Divine 
Sonship  and  preexistence.  Such  assertions  can  be  found  even  in 
the  Apostolic  and  Sub-apostolic  Fathers,  linking  up  the  first  Father 
who  directly  refers  to  this  text  (Irenaeus)  to  the  time  contemporary 
with  the  Gospel  writers. 

The  Didache  (65-80)  gives  instruction  "to  baptize  in  the  name 
of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost "  (VII.).1  IEp. 
Clement  (96)  refers  to  Christ  as  "the  Son"  and  says  that  "con- 
cerning the  Son,  the  Master  said  thus :  'Thou  art  My  Son,  I  today 
have  begotten  Thee'  "  (XXXVI.).2  Christ  is  called  "Our  God" 
and  "Son  of  God"  by  Ignatius  (98-117)  in  the  same  breath  as  he 
speaks  of  His  Virgin  Birth  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (Ephes.  XVIII. ; 
Smyr.  I.  I).3  He  also  mentions  "in  the  Son  and  Father  and  in  the 
Spirit"  (Mag.  XIII.),4  and  says  that  Christ  "was  with  the  Father 
before  the  world"  (Mag.  VI.).5  TheEp.  Barnabas  (70-132)  speaks 
of  the  Son  of  God  coming  in  the  flesh  (e.g.  V.),  and  narrates  that 
Christ  "manifested  Himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God"  (V.),  that  He 
"said  He  was  the  Son  of  God"  (VII.).6  The  Pastor  of  Hermas 
(90-155)  states  that  "the  Son  of  God  is  older  than  all  His  creatures, 

1  Lightfoot,  Apostolic  Fathers,  220. 

2  Lightfoot,  Apostolic  Fathers,  73.   Clement  refers  to  Christ's  preexistence,  XVI. 

3  Lightfoot,  Apostolic  Fathers,  141.  156;  cf .  Ephes.  VII. 

4  Id.  146. 

5  Id.  144;  cf.  also  VII. 

6  Id.  273,  276.     Christ's  preexistence  stated,  v.g.  VI.  12. 

IS 


14     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

so  that  He  became  the  Father's  adviser  in  His  creation"  (III. 
Sim.  IX.  12).1  Jesus  is  called  God's  "Beloved  Son"  in  Epistle 
to  Diognetus  (about  150).  This  work  mentions  a  great  and  un- 
utterable scheme  conceived  in  God's  mind  which  "He  communi- 
cated to  His  Son  alone"  (VIII.).2  St.  Justin  Martyr  (155-160)  says 
that  the  "Word  of  God  is  His  Son"  and  mentions  texts  which 
"were  written"  to  prove  "that  Jesus  the  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God" 
(1  Apol.  LXIII.).3  He  frequently  uses  the  words  "the  Son,"  "the 
Father,"  and  his  meaning  is  clear.  Thus  he  says  "and  His  Son, 
who  alone  is  properly  called  son,  the  Word  who  was  with  Him 
and  was  begotten  before  the  works"  (II.  Apol.  VI.)-4 

That  real  Divine  Sonship  was  expressed  in  the  first  recorded 
words  of  Jesus  would  be  implied  by  the  Fathers,  who  refer  to  the 
Child  Christ  as  "  God."  Many  Fathers  said  that  the  Magi  offered  in- 
cense to  the  Christ  Child  "as  to  God":  Irenaeus,5  Origen,6  Juven- 
cus,7  Ambrose,8  Jerome,9  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,10  Chrysostom,11 
Gregory  the  Great.12  Ephraim  writes  "God  as  a  Babe,"13  and 
Augustine  states  "from  the  time  He  began  to  be  man,  from  this 
time  He  is  also  God."14 

The  Fathers,  interpreting  the  scene  of  the  Boy  Christ  among 
the  Doctors,  Luke  ii.  46-48,  maintained  it  to  have  been  miraculous, 
thereby  implying  the  view  presented  in  the  previous  chapter.15 

More  direct  is  the  evidence  from  the  statements  of  the  Fathers 
on  the  question  of  the  increase  of  Christ's  knowledge  and  their 

1  Id.  469.     This  writer  frequently  uses  "Son,"  "Son  of  God." 

2  Id.  507. 
3A-NFI.  184. 
*A-NFI.  190. 

6  Adv.  Haer.  III.  9,  2,  M.PG  VII.  871. 

6  Contra  Celsus  I.  60,  M.PG  LX.  772. 

7  Harmon,  line  250,  Corp.  Script.  Lat.  XXIV.  16. 

8  Exposit.  Luc.  in  Luc.  ii,  M.PL  XIV.  1569. 
8Exposit.  Matt,  ii,  M.PL  XXX.  557. 

10  Oration  XIX.  12,  M.PG  XXXV.  1057;  Oration  XXXVIII.  17,  M.PG  XXXVI. 
352. 

11  Qedv  kv  caput  irpoaKwov^vov.    In  Matt.  Horn.  VII.  4,  M.PG  LVII.  77. 

12  Thus  vero  in  Dei  sacrificium  ponebatur.  Horn,  in  Evang.  1 10,  6,  M.PL  LXXVI. 
1112. 

13  Hymn  I.  in  Nativ.  N.P-NF  (2d  ser.)  XIII.  223. 

14  Ex  quo  homo  coepit,  ex  illo  est  et  Deus.    De  Trin.  XIII.  17,  M.PL  XLII.  1031. 
16  As  a  rule  the  Fathers  refer  to  Christ  as  "disputing,"  and  give  the  interpretation 

that  the  scene  was  miraculous.  See  below,  p.  132-3.  Chrysostom  says  that  when 
Christ  was  twelve  years  old  "He  manifested  Himself"  (k£k<j>rivtv  kavrdp),  in 
Matt.  Horn.  X.  2,  M.PG  LVII.  186. 


OTHER  EARLY  CHURCH  EVIDENCE  15 

explanations  of  Luke  ii.  52,  "and  Jesus  advanced  in  wisdom  ..." 
As  to  how  "Jesus  advanced  in  wisdom"  the  Fathers  are  divided, 
some  of  them  holding  that  the  text  merely  has  reference  to  external 
manifestation  of  wisdom,1  while  others  claim  it  means  that  Christ 
increased  * 'according  to  human  nature."  2  But  all  insist  that  ac- 
cording to  His  divine  Nature  He  knew  no  increase.  For  instance, 
Athanasius  writes,  "it  was  only  His  human  nature  that  advanced; 
Wisdom  Himself  did  not  advance,  rather  He  advanced  in  Him- 
self" (cxuibq  £v  £auT(p  xpoixoxTs).3 

We  have  such  assertions  as  that  of  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
who  says  of  Christ,  "for  Him  to  make  any  additions  to  His 
knowledge  is  absurd,  since  He  is  God,"  4  and  that  of  John  of 
Damascus,  who  states  that  those  who  assert  there  was  an  increase 
of  wisdom  and  grace  in  Christ  "deny  that  He  enjoyed  the  Hypo- 
static Union  from  the  first  moment  of  His  existence."  6 

That  Christ  had  no  development,  but  was  perfect  from  the 
beginning,  is  stated  by  some  of  the  Fathers.  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria asks,  "Will  they  not  own,  though  reluctant,  that  the  Perfect 
Word  born  of  the  Perfect  Father  was  begotten  in  Perfection, 
according  to  economic  fore-ordination?" 6  Explaining  that 
"wisdom  and  age"  were  only  gradually  evidenced,  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus  asks,  "How  could  He  become  more  perfect  Who  from  the 
beginning  was  perfect?"  (toO  &%*  dpx?j<;TsXs(ou).7  That  Christ  was  a 
perfect  man  already  in  the  womb  (perf ectus  vir  in  ventro  femineo) 8 
was  stated  by  Jerome.  And  he  also  states  that  His  infancy  was 
not  prejudicial  to  His  Divine  wisdom,  "infantiam  humani  corporis 
divinae  non  praejudicasse  sapientiae."  9  Cyril  of  Alexandria  says 
that  "a  wonderful  wisdom  might  easily  have  appeared  (ixcp-fjvai) 

1 V.  g.  Cyril  of  Alex.  In  Luc,  M.PG  LXXII.  507-8;  Nilus,  Epist.  I.  288,  M.PG 
LXXIX.  188. 

2  Ambrose,  De  Incaraat.  VII.  72,  M.PL  LXV.  231:  Proculus,  Epist.  XIV. 
M.PG  LXV.  869;  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  M.PG  XLV.  735.  For  other  references  see 
Schulte,  Die  Entwickelung  der  Lehre  vom  menschl.  Wissen  Christi. 

3  Oratio  III.  Contra  Ar.,  M.PG  XXVI.  433.  See  also  Epist.  to  Epict.,  M.PG 
XXVI.  1060.  Also  Theodoret,  De  Incarnat.,  M.PG  LXXXIV.  72;  Vigilius,  Contra 
Eutych.  V.  12-13,  M.PL  LXII.  143-144,  etc. 

« Paedag.  I.  6,  M.PG  VIII.  279. 

e  De  Fide  orthod.  III.  22,  M.PG  XCIV.  1080. 

6  Loc.  cit. 

7  Oratio  XLIII.  in  Laud.    Basil.  M.PG  XXXVI.  548. 

8  In  Jerem.  vi.  22,  Corp.  Script.  Lat.  (edit.  Rieter),  LIX.  398. 

9  In  Isaiam  iii.  7,  M.PL  XXIV.  110. 


16     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

in  the  Babe,"  l  but  that  it  would  be  incongruous  to  the  laws  of 
"the  economy/ '  And  Augustine  holds  that  ignorance  and  mental 
weakness  were  not  in  the  Infant  Jesus,  "...  quam  plane  ignoran- 
tiam  nullo  modo  crediderim  fuisse  in  infante  illo,  in  quo  Verbum 
caro  factum  est,  ut  habitaret  in  nobis,  nee  illam  ipsius  animi 
infirmitatem  in  Christo  parvulo  fuerim  suspicatus,  quam  videmus 
in  parvulis."  2 

These  Fathers,  attributing  no  ignorance  and  no  mental  develop- 
ment to  the  Christ  Child,  would  imply  the  interpretation  of  real 
Divine  Sonship  in  the  first  recorded  words. 

This  interpretation  is  also  implied  by  other  evidence  in  connec- 
tion with  words  in  the  context  of  Luke  ii.  49.  In  Luke  ii.  33, 
according  to  the  correct  text,  Joseph  is  mentioned  as  6  xorcf)  p  auxo  0 ; 
in  both  Luke  ii.  41  and  43,  Mary  and  Joseph  are  called  o?  yoveiq 
aikou,  and  in  the  question  which  drew  forth  Christ's  first  words, 
Mary  refers  to  Joseph  as  6  luornijp  aou,  Luke  ii.  48.  There  is  wide- 
spread evidence  of  a  distaste  for  the  names  "parents "  and  "father  " 
in  these  verses. 

Frequently  do  we  find  the  Fathers  explaining  why  Mary 
referred  to  Joseph  as  "Thy  Father."  Thus  Origen,  giving  Luke 
ii.  48  as  an  example,  says  that  the  word  "father"  is  "granted" 
to  Joseph  in  Scripture  on  account  of  His  faithful  ministry,  "Pro 
fideli  ministerio,  patris  ei  vocabulum  Scriptura  concessit." 3 
Epiphanius  often  repeats  that  Joseph  was  not  father,  but  was  only 
in  the  place  (£v  td£ft)  of  a  father.4  The  reason  why  Mary  ca  led 
Joseph  father  was,  according  to  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  to  avoid 
the  suspicion  of  the  Jews.5  Likewise,  St.  John  Chrysostom  assigns 
the  reason  why  the  Virgin  Birth  was  concealed,  not  only  by  Mary 
but  even  afterward  by  the  Apostles,  "that  the  Virgin  should  be 
preserved  and  delivered  from  all  suspicion."  6 

Both  Augustine  and  Jerome  explain  the  use  of  the  words 

1  Quod  unus  est  Christus,  760,  M.PG  LXXV.  1352. 

2De  PeccatoEum  Meritiis  et  Remissione,  II.  48,  Corp.  Script.  Lat.  LX.  119. 
Commenting  on  Jerem.  i.  6,  "I  do  not  know  to  speak,  because  I  am  a  youth," 
Origen  (Horn.  I.  8,  in  Jerem.  M.PG  XIII.  265)  seems  to  attribute  this  passage 
to  the  Logos  before  He  assumed  human  nature.  Hence  He  would  not  be  an  ex- 
ception to  the  Fathers  given  above. 

3  In  Levit.  Horn.  XIII.  M.PG  XIII.  539. 

« Twice  in  Adv.  Haer.  I.  II.  xxx.29M.PG  XLI.  456-7;  again,  M.PG  XLII.  686. 

6  Explan.  in  Luc.  Evang.  ad  loc,  M.PG  LXXII.  508. 

«In  Matt.  Horn.  III.  N.P-NF  (1st  ser.)  X.  15. 


OTHER  EARLY  CHURCH  EVIDENCE  17 

"parents"  and  'father."  Augustine  says,  because  of  their  conju- 
gal fidelity  Mary  and  Joseph  are  called  "parents,"  and  Joseph  is 
Christ's  father,  being  the  husband  of  Mary  but  the  "father  in 
purpose  only."  l  St.  Jerome  states,  that  to  preserve  the  reputa- 
tion of  Mary,  Joseph  was  regarded  by  all  as  father;  2  and  he  men- 
tions the  fact  of  Joseph  being  called  father  by  Mary,  who  had 
conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  an  example  of  things  referred  to 
in  Scripture  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  time  and  not  according 
to  reality  (non  juxta  quod  rei  Veritas  continebat).3  So,  too, 
Sophronius  explains  that  Joseph  was  only  thought  to  be  father,  and 
it  was  Mary  who  "had  not  known  man"  who  says  "thy  father."  4 

And  instead  of  quoting  Mary's  words  correctly:  "Thy  father 
and  I,"  many  early  writers  betraying  their  reverence  for  the  Virgin 
Mother  invert  the  order  giving  "I  and  Thy  father";  this  is  done 
by  Origen,5  Jerome,6  Epiphanius,7  Sophronius,8  and  Chrysos- 
tom.9 

This  tendency  to  dislike  the  name  father  as  applied  to  Joseph, 
to  dislike  to  include  him  under  the  name  of  parents  is  also  evi- 
denced in  the  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  texts  and  the  versions.10 

First  as  to  the  Greek  texts  in  Luke  ii.  33  (for  6  iu<m?)p  aikou 
xat  fj  tAT)TY)p  [Tisch.  adds  aurou]  we  find  'Ioxj^ip  (or  6  'Iwa^tp)  xal 
IJUfjnQp  aikou  in  AEGHKMSUVTAAII  al  pier  go  cop  (dz  recent) 
syr  (hard  text);  and  in  Luke  ii.  43  (instead  of  *(ovziq)  we  find 
'Iwa^ip  xal  y)  tiTjTiqp  auToO  in  ACXTAII  unc8  al  pier  go  syr  (hard 
text)  aeth. 

The  same  thing  is  to  be  noticed  in  some  of  the  Old  Latin  ver- 
sions.   For  "pater  ejus  et  mater"  of  ii.  33,  we  find  "Joseph  et  mater 

1  De  Nuptiis  et  Concup.  I.  XIII.  Corp.  Script.  Lat.  XLII.  225.  Cf.  Concord. 
Evang.  Matt.  Luc.  serm.  LI,  M.PL  XXXVIII.  342  ff. 

2  Perpet.  Virgin,  of  B.  Mary,  N.P-NF  (2d  ser.)  VI.  33  ff. 

3  In  Jerem.  proph.  V.  Corp.  Script.  Lat.  (edit.  Reiter),  LIX.  345. 

4  In  S.  apost.  Pet.  et  Paul,  IX,  M.PG  LXXXVII.  3364. 

5  Loc.  cit. 

6  In  the  last  place  cited.    In  the  other  place  Jerome  quotes  the  text  correctly. 

7  In  the  three  places  cited. 

8  Loc.  cit. 

9  Twice,  cf.  Teschendorf,  Oct.  Maj.  ad  loc.  It  is  also  done  in  later  works:  Dial. 
Maced.  (Tischendorf,  op.  cit.),  Pseudo-Augustinus  (Lib.  Quaest.  LXI.  3),  Alcuin 
(Adv.  Fel.  VII),  Photius  (Ad  Amphil.  CLVIII),  and  others. 

10  Vogels,  "Die  Eltern  Jesu,"  BZ  XI  (1913)  33  ff.,  has  collected  the  texts.  Here 
we  only  indicate  the  changes,  and  refer  to  this  article  for  the  authorities  for  the 
preferred  reading. 


18     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

ejus"  in  a  b  c  d  f  ff2  g  1  q  r;  aur  5.  The  word  "parentes"  of  ii.  41, 
is  changed  into,  "Joseph  et  Maria,"  by  a  b  c  ff2  g  1  q  r.  And  "  pater 
tuus  et  ego"  of  ii.  48,  is  left  out  in  a  b  ff2  g  1  r  (aur.  reverses  the 
order,  "ego  et  pater  tuus,"  and  e  has  the  reading,  "propinqui  tui 
et  ego"). 

As  to  the  Syriac  versions,  the  Curetonian  drops  out  "Thy  father 
and  I"  in  ii.  48,  the  Sinaiticus  has  "kinsfolk"  for  "parents"  in 
ii.  41,  43.  The  Peschitto  inserts  "Joseph"  instead  of  "father" 
in  ii.  33,  "kinsfold"  instead  of  "parents"  in  ii.  41,  "Joseph  and 
His  mother"  instead  of  "parents"  in  ii.  43. 

All  these  changes  could  not  have  been  caused  through  error, 
or  through  the  "love  of  amplification."1  Most  scholars  agree 
that  these  changes  were  deliberately  made  on  account  of  a  dislike 
to  name  Joseph  as  father.  How  early  this  evidence  appears,  is 
seen  from  the  fact  that  the  changes  are  found  not  only  in  the 
Greek  manuscripts  but  also  in  the  Old  Latin  and  Syriac  versions. 
This  objection  to  the  name  father  when  applied  to  Joseph,  and  to 
having  him  included  under  the  word  "parents, "  is  evidence  of  first 
rate  importance,  to  the  early  belief  in  the  Virgin  Birth  and  is  in- 
direct evidence  as  to  how  the  Early  Church  viewed  the  words  "My 
Father"  on  Christ's  lips.  It  was  for  them  the  expression  of  real 
Divine  Sonship. 

2.    THE   APOCRYPHAL  GOSPELS  OF  THE   CHILDHOOD 

We  shall  have  occasion  to  mention  the  Protevangelium  of 
James,  the  Gospel  of  Pseudo-Matthew,  the  Childhood  Gospel  of 
Thomas,  and  the  Arabic  Gospel  of  the  Childhood.  The  Prot- 
evangelium of  James  "is  very  old"2;  some  scholars  date  the 
writing  in  the  early  decades  of  the  second  century,  but  most 
scholars  place  it  "in  the  second  half  of  the  century."  3  The  Gospel 
of  Pseudo-Matthew  is  a  recension  of  the  Protevangelium  and  its 
date  lies  between  the  fourth  and  the  sixth  century.4  Of  the  Child- 
hood Gospel  of  Thomas  there  are  three  forms,  two  in  Greek  and 

1  Plummer  (Comment,  on  St.  Luke,  75)  says:  "the  love  of  amplification  or  of 
definiteness  might  suffice." 

2  Hoffman,  Apocrypha,  Sch-HEnc  I.  106. 

8  Findlay,  Gospels  (Apocryphal),  HDG  I.  681. 

4  Cf.  Reid,  Cath.  Enc.  I.  607.    Findlay,  HDG  I.  682. 


OTHER  EARLY  CHURCH  EVIDENCE  19 

one  in  Latin.  Irenaeus'  citation  from  it  (Adv.  Haer.  I.  20,  1) 
would  suggest  it  is  a  gnostic  production  of  the  second  century;1 
but  the  forms  in  which  it  has  come  down  to  us  bear  but  slight 
evidence  of  this  influence.  The  date  of  the  recension  by  an  ortho- 
dox hand  is  placed  about  the  third  century.2  The  Arabic  Gospel 
of  the  Childhood  is  a  translation  of  a  lost  Syriac  original.3  Its 
date  is  comparatively  late,  though  probably  before  the  Moham- 
medan era.4 

These  Apocryphal  writings  may  contain  authentic  material 
in  the  additions  to  the  narratives  of  the  Gospels,  but  in  this 
respect  their  value  remains  problematic,  and  consequently  slight. 
The  chief  and  great  value  of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels  is  that  they 
reflect  the  views  of  the  times  in  which  they  were  written  and 
extensively  read.  Nearly  all  the  Apocrypha  were  written  with  a 
deliberate  dogmatic  purpose  and  even  those  which  were  not,  are 
"doctrinally  significant."5  The  Childhood  Gospels,  as  we  have 
them,  were  written  in  the  interests  of  orthodoxy,  and  their  value 
is  enhanced  because  of  their  remarkable  popularity,  especially  in 
the  East.6  The  Protevangelium  was  translated  into  Syriac, 
Coptic  and  Arabic;  the  Arabic  Gospel  of  the  Childhood  enjoyed 
a  wide  circulation  not  only  in  the  Churches  of  the  East,  but  also 
in  Mohammedan  circles.7 

What  do  we  find  in  these  accounts  of  Christ's  Childhood? 
They  most  explicitly  and  emphatically  testify  to  the  Virgin  Birth 
of  Christ.8  They  attribute  wonderful  innate  miraculous  power 
to  the  Child  Jesus, — having  His  "every  word  accomplished,"9 
and  ascribe  great  preternatural  knowledge  to  Him.  The  Pseudo- 
Matthew,  the  Gospel  of  Thomas,  and  the  Arabic  Gospel  mention 

1  Cf.  Hoffman,  Sch-HEnc  I.  106.  Tasker  puts  it  160-180  a.d.  (HDB  Extra  vol. 
433,  Apocryphal  Gospels). 

2  Some  place  the  present  form  before  the  third  century  (cf .  Bardenhewer,  Patrol. 
74.  Hoffman,  loc.  cit).  Some  place  it  after  the  third  century  (cf.  Findlay  DHG  I. 
683,  Michel  Textes  et  Documents,  Evang.  Apoc.  I.  XXXII). 

3  Cf.  Batiffol,  fivang.  Apoc.  VDB  II.  2116.  Hoffman,  op.  cit.  106,  Reid,  Cath. 
Enc.  I.  607,  Tasker,  HDB  Extra  vol.  433. 

4  Cf.  Reid,  Cath.  Enc.  I.  607,  Tasker,  HDB  Extra  vol.  433. 
6  Findlay,  HDG  I.  673. 

6  Cf .  Findlay,  HDG  I.  674. 

7  In  the  Koran  Jesus  is  represented  as  working  miracles  in  His  Childhood. 

8  E.g.  Protevang.  XIX  (A-NF  VIII.  365),  Ps.  Matthew,  XIII  (A-NF  VIII. 
374). 

9  Gosp.  of  Thomas  (both  Greek  forms),  IV  (A-NF  VIII.  395, 


20     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

three  occasions  on  which  the  Child  Jesus  was  taken  to  school,  but 
on  each  occasion  it  was  He  who  was  the  Master,  giving  evidence  of 
preternatural  knowledge.  They  witness  to  Christ's  real  Divinity 
as  a  child;  they  have  this  stated  by  others,1  but  what  is  more 
significant  for  our  purpose,  they  represent  Him  as  testifying  to  His 
Divinity  and  Divine  Sonship.  For  instance,  the  Gospel  of  Thomas 
(first  Greek  form),  III.:  "I  am  here  from  above  —  as  He  that  sent 
Me  on  your  account  has  commanded  Me" 2;  (second  Greek 
form),  VI.  "I  am  before  the  ages"  3;  (Latin  form),  VI.  "and  before 
all  I  was  Lord  .  .  .  and  My  Father  hath  appointed  this  .  .  . " 4 ;  in 
Pseudo-Matthew,  XXI.  "that  one  of  thy  branches  be  carried  away 
by  My  angels,  and  planted  in  the  paradise  of  My  Father." 8 
According  to  the  Arabic  Gospel,  I.,  Jesus  says  from  the  cradle,  "I 
am  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  the  Logos  whom  thou  hast  brought  forth 
as  the  angel  Gabriel  announced  to  thee;  and  My  Father  has  sent 
Me  for  the  salvation  of  the  world."  6  So  that  if  the  Apocryphal 
Gospels  of  the  Childhood  reflect  the  views  of  the  times  in  which 
they  were  circulated  (and  in  regard  to  doctrine  they  certainly  do), 
then  in  these  early  centuries  it  was  held  that  Christ  as  a  Child  was 
conscious  of  His  mission,  Divinity  and  Divine  Sonship.  They 
certainly  do  not  reflect  any  tradition  of  a  growth  or  development 
of  His  Self -consciousness,  or  that  at  a  certain  stage  of  His  life  He 
awoke  to  the  consciousness  of  His  Divine  Sonship.  They  vividly 
depict  Him  as  wielding  miraculous  power  and  fully  conscious  of  His 
Nature  and  Personality,  and  this  as  a  Child.  The  Apocryphal 
Gospels  with  which  we  are  dealing  are  concerned  with  Christ  only 
before  His  twelfth  year  and  do  not  go  beyond  that.  Two  of  them, 
the  Gospel  of  Thomas  (first  Greek  form  XIX.)  and  the  Arabic 
Gospel  (L.-LIII.)  end  their  accounts  by  narrating  the  Temple 
episode.     In  describing  the  Gospel  incident  of  the  twelfth  year, 

1E.g.  Ps.  Matthew,  XXIV:  "Unless  this  were  the  God  of  our  Gods,  our  Gods 
would  not  have  fallen  on  their  faces  before  Him"  (A-NF  VIII.  377);  Gosp.  of 
Thomas,  VII.  "Assuredly  He  was  born  before  the  creation  of  the  world"  (A-NF 
VIII.  396);  Arabic  Gospel,  X.  "A  god  has  come  here  in  secret  who  is  God  indeed" 
(A-NF  VIII.  406);  etc. 

2  A-NF  VIII.  396. 

3  A-NF  VIII.  399. 

4  A-NF  VIII.  401. 

6  A-NF  VIII.  277;  cf.  Chs.  XX.  XXX. 
6  A-NF  VIII.  405. 


OTHER  EARLY  CHURCH  EVIDENCE  21 

the  Gospel  of  Thomas  represents  Christ  before  the  Doctors  as 
"shutting  the  mouths  of  the  elders  and  teachers  of  the  people, 
explaining  the  main  points  of  the  Law  and  the  parables  of  the 
Prophets."  l  It  gives  His  words  in  answer  to  His  mother; 2  and 
it  represents  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  as  then  addressing  Mary 
thus:  "Blessed  art  thou  among  women,  for  such  glory,  and  such 
virtue  and  wisdom,  we  have  neither  seen  nor  heard  ever."  3  From 
the  context  one  can  easily  see  that  the  writer  of  this  Childhood 
Gospel  of  Thomas  understood  Christ's  reference  to  His  Father  in 
Luke  ii.  49  in  the  real  sense.  Indeed  this  work  represents  Christ  as 
previously  divinely  self-conscious,  v.g.  VIIL,  "I  am  here  from 
above." 

The  Arabic  Gospel  of  the  Childhood  is  of  comparatively  late  date, 
but  nevertheless  important  because  it  is  a  translation  of  a  Syriac 
original;  because  of  its  wide  circulation,  and  the  great  emphasis 
it  places  on  the  Child  Jesus'  Divinity  and  Divine  self -consciousness. 
As  we  mentioned,  this  work  represents  the  Child  Jesus  shortly 
after  birth  as  proclaiming  His  Divinity  and  mission;  it  represents 
the  twelve-year-old  Christ  before  the  doctors  discoursing  on  the 
natural  sciences  and  on  questions  of  Scripture:  "Things  which 
the  understanding  of  no  creature  attains  to."4  It  likewise  gives 
Christ's  answer  to  His  mother  thus:  "Why  do  you  seek  Me? 
Do  you  not  know  that  I  must  be  in  My  Father's  house?"  5  There 
is  no  question  (as  is  clear  from  the  whole  context  of  the  work) 
that  this  writer  understands  the  words  "My  Father"  on  the  Boy's 
lips  as  expressing  real  Divine  Sonship. 

Since  the  Apocryphal  Gospels  of  the  Childhood  cast  sidelights 
on  what  people  thought  of  Christ  in  the  early  centuries,  they  cer- 
tainly afford  widespread  evidence  for  the  view  that  Christ  as  a 
Child  was  fully  conscious  of  His  Divinity,  for  the  view  that  in  His 
first  recorded  words  He  expressed  true  Divine  Sonship.  If  there 
is  any  one  doctrine  emphasized  in  these  Apocrypha,  it  is  the  doc- 
trine of  a  Child  born  of  a  Virgin,  possessing  Divine  powers  and 
Divine  knowledge,  and  this  doctrine  implies  that  the  words  "My 

1 A-NF  VII.  398. 

2  Text  given  by  Michel,  Textes  et  Documents,  Evang.  Apoc.  I.  188. 

»  A-NF  VIIL  398. 

4  A-NF  VIIL  415. 

6  For  Arabic  Text,  see  Thilo,  Codex.  Apoc.  N.T.  128. 


22     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Father,"  in  which  the  Boy  Jesus  referred  to  God,  were  taken  liter- 
ally. 

Now  in  regard  to  doctrine,  these  Apocrypha  are  orthodox. 
They  could  not  become  so  remarkably  popular  if  they  contained 
fundamental  doctrines  opposed  to  the  opinions  of  the  time.  As 
Findlay  says,  "The  Childhood  Gospels  stand  in  the  main  current 
of  ecclesiastical  doctrine  in  their  view  of  the  Person  of  Christ."  l 
So  that  we  have  early  and  widespread  evidence  that  the  view  of  the 
Early  Church  was  that  Christ  did  not  undergo  any  development 
in  His  Divine  self -consciousness,  that  as  a  Child  He  was  conscious 
of  His  Divinity  and  Divine  Sonship,  and  hence  that  His  words, 
given  in  Luke  ii.  49,  express  real  Divine  Sonship. 

The  objection  that  the  Apocryphal  Gospels  were  rejected  and 
condemned  by  the  Fathers  does  not  touch  what  we  have  said. 
The  latter,  it  is  true,  recorded  their  antipathy  for  the  "false  and 
wicked  stories"2  and  "ludicrous  miracles"3  recounted  in  these 
writings,  but  they  do  not  object  to  the  doctrine  which  shines 
through  almost  every  page  of  these  writings,  the  Child  Jesus' 
Divinity  and  Divine  self -consciousness.  If  this  was  false  and 
opposed  to  the  received  tradition,  it  would  be  the  first  thing  the 
Fathers  would  attack  and  condemn. 

*HDGI.  674. 

2  Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haer.  I.  20,  1,  M.PG  VII.  653. 

•Epiphanius,  Adv.  Haer.  II.  1,  Haer.  LI.  20;  cf.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Cat.  IV.  36. 


CHAPTER  III 
CONFLICTING  HERETICAL  OPINIONS 

There  is  no  evidence,  in  the  early  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era,  of  any  explicit  denials  of  the  view  that  Jesus,  in  the  first 
recorded  words,  expressed  real  Divine  Sonship.  A  denial,  however, 
is  implied  in  the  various  heresies  of  that  period  which  denied  the 
Divinity  of  Christ  and  taught  that  Jesus,  a  mere  man  up  to  his 
thirtieth  year,  was  at  baptism  indued  with  a  higher  personality.1 

Cerinthus,  a  contemporary  of  St.  John,  held  that  Jesus  was  a 
mere  man  born  of  Mary  and  Joseph,  and  professed  the  view  that 
"after  His  baptism,  Christ  descended  upon  Him  in  the  form  of  a 
dove  from  the  Supreme  Ruler,  and  that  then  He  proclaimed  the 
unknown  Father  and  performed  miracles."  2 

Likewise,  maintaining  Jesus  to  be  the  son  of  Joseph,  Carpo- 
crates  (beginning  of  second  century)  thought  that  "a  power 
descended  upon  Him  from  the  Father,  that  by  means  of  it,  he 
might  escape  from  the  creators  of  the  world."  3  We  do  not  know 
what  Carpocrates'  view  was,  as  to  when  this  power  came  on  Jesus; 
he  may  have  held  it  was  at  the  baptism. 

According  to  Irenaeus,4  the  opinion  of  the  Ebionites  in  respect 
to  the  Lord  are  similar  to  those  of  Cerinthus  and  Carpocrates. 
Epiphanius5  says  they  held  that  Christ  came  upon  Jesus,  the  mere 
man,  at  His  baptism,  when  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  form  of  a  dove, 
descended  upon  Him.   The  Christology  of  the  Elkesaites  resembled 

1  Cf.  Bornemann,  Die  Taufe  Christi,  41-49;  Brandt,  Die  jlidischen  Baptism  en, 
Zatl  W  XVIII  (1910)  90  ff.;  de  PressensS,  The  Early  Years  of  Christianity,  Book  I. 
1-193;  Duchesne,  Early  History  of  the  Church,  112  ff. 

2  Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haer.  I.  26, 1  (A-NF  I.  352),  also  Hippolytus,  Refutation  of  all 
Her.  X.  XVII. 

8  Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haer.  I.  25,  I  (A-NF  I.  350). 

4  Adv.  Haer.  I.  26,  2  (A-NF  I.  352). 

5  Adv.  Haer.  I.  II.  Haer.  XXX.  29  (M.PG  XLI.  465).  Thus  in  the  Gospel  used  by 
the  Ebionites  (Epiphanius,  Haer.  XXX.  13,  M.PG  XLI.  429)  in  the  account  of  the 
baptism  there  are  three  voices  from  heaven,  one  addressed  to  Christ  Himself,  "I 
have  this  day  begotten  Thee." 

23 


24     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

that  of  the  Ebionites  and  Cerinthus :  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  became  Divine  after  baptism,  by  union  with  the  Aeon 
Christ.1 

The  work,  Libellus  adversus  omnes  Haereses,  which  most 
probably  belongs  to  Victorinus  of  Pettau,  states  that  a  certain 
Marcus  and  a  Colarbasus,  composing  a  novel  heresy  out  of  the 
Greek  alphabet,  said  that  "Jesus  Christ  descended,  that  is,  that 
the  dove  came  down  on  Jesus."  2  For  this  meaningless  expression, 
"denique  Jesum  Christum  descendisse, "  there  has  been  recom- 
mended the  reading,  "in  Jesum  Christum  descendisse,"  i.e.,  that 
Christ  descended  on  Jesus,3  thus  conforming  in  view  to  the  heresies 
previously  mentioned. 

According  to  Clement  of  Alexandria,4  the  followers  of  Basilides 
(about  120-140)  kept  the  anniversary  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  "as 
a  festival,  spending  the  night  before  in  readings."  From  this,  it 
would  seem  to  have  been  their  view  that,  it  was  only  at  the  baptism 
that  Nous,  the  first  emanation  of  the  Supreme  Father,  took  upon 
him  in  Jesus  the  semblance  of  humanity.5  We  know  from  Tertul- 
lian6  that  the  Valentinians  (Valentinus  died  about  160)  held  that 
upon  Christ  the  natural  Son  of  the  Demiurge  (born  through  the  Vir- 
gin, not  of  her)  "Jesus  descended  in  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  in  the 
likeness  of  a  dove."  Irenaeus  tells  us  that  the  Ophites,  holding 
that  Jesus,  born  of  a  Virgin,  was  more  righteous  than  other  men, 
said,  "Christ,  united  to  Sophia,  descended  into  him,  and  thus 
Jesus  Christ  was  produced."  7  That  these  heretics  had  in  mind 
the  baptism,  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  Irenaeus  goes  on  to  state 
that  "they  strove  to  establish  the  descent  and  ascent  of  Christ, 
by  the  fact  that  neither 'before  His  baptism,  nor  after  His  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead,  do  His  disciples  state  that  He  did  any  mighty 
works."  8 

Marcion   (born  110)   mutilated  for  his  purpose  the  Gospel 

1  Cf.  Bardenhewer,  Patrol.  190.    Duchesne,  Early  History  of  the  Church,  96. 

2  A-NF  III.  653.    Cf.  Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haer.  I.  21,  3  (A-NF  I.  346). 

3  Cf .  A-NF  III.  653,  note  2. 

4  Strom.  I.  xxi.  45  (M.PG  VII.  888). 
6  Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haer.  I.  24;  3,  4. 

6  Against  the  Valent.,  XXVII.  (A-NF  III.  516).    Cf.  Arendzen,  art.  Gnosticism, 
Cath.  Enc.  VI.  595. 

7  Adv.  Haer.  I.  30,  12  (A-NF  I.  357). 
»  Adv.  Haer.  I.  30,  14  (A-NF  I.  357). 


CONFLICTING  HERETICAL  OPINIONS  25 

according  to  St.  Luke,  and  professed  the  view  that  "Jesus,  being 
derived  from  that  Father  who  is  above  the  God  that  made  the 
world,  and  coming  into  Judea  in  the  time  of  Pontius  Pilate,  was 
manifested  in  the  form  of  a  man  to  those  who  were  in  Judea."  x 
Rejecting  the  Gospel  narratives  of  Christ's  baptism  and  tempta- 
tion, commencing  his  account  of  the  God-Manifest  with  Luke 
iv.  14,  Marcion  does  not  attach  any  importance  to  the  baptism 
account;  yet  his  view  implies  a  rejection  of  the  Fathers'  interpre- 
tation of  Luke  ii.  49. 

We  know  from  many  sources  the  position  of  Theodotus  of 
Byzantium  (about  190).  Hippolytus  2  says  he  appropriated  his 
notions  of  Christ  "from  the  school  of  the  Gnostics,  and  of  Cerinthus 
and  Ebion,"  and  he  describes  his  view  thus:  Jesus  was  a  mere  man 
yet  was  born  of  a  virgin.  He  "at  His  baptism  in  the  Jordan 
received  Christ,  who  came  from  above  and  descended  (upon  Him) 
in  the  form  of  a  dove.  And  this  was  the  reason,  according  to 
Theodotus,  why  (miraculous)  powers  did  not  operate  within  him 
prior  to  the  manifestation  in  him  of  that  Spirit  which  descended 
(and)  which  proclaims  Him  to  be  the  Christ.' '  In  the  very  next 
chapter  (XXIV.),  there  is  described  the  view  of  another  Theodotus, 
a  banker.  He  developed  the  Melchisedecian  heresy,  and  holding 
views  similar  to  the  adherents  of  the  other  Theodotus,  asserted 
"that  Jesus  is  a  (mere)  man,  and  that,  in  conformity  with  the  same 
account  (already  given),  Christ  descended  upon  him."  3 

According  to  an  anonymous  fragment  "Against  the  heresy  of 
Artemon," 4  Theodotus'  heresy  was  adopted  by  Artemon  (or 
Artemas,  about  230).  Whether  the  view  in  regard  to  Christ's 
baptism  was  taken  up,  however,  is  not  certain.  A  somewhat 
similar  situation  is  presented  in  the  case  of  Paul  of  Samosata, 
Bishop  of  Antioch  (260-270).  We  are  told  in  Malchion's  letter5 
that  he  swaggered  "with  the  abominable  heresy  of  Artemas." 

1  Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haer.  I.  27,  2  (A-NF  352).  Cf.  Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc.  IV.  vii. 
(A-NF  III.  351). 

Refutation  of  all  Her.  VII.  xxiii.  (A-NF  V.  114-115). 

8  A-NF  V.  115. 

4  Also  called  "The  little  Labyrinth"  (Theodoret,  Haer.  Fab.  II.  5).  It  is  pre- 
served by  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  V.  28),  and  it  is  attributed  to  Caius  and  to 
Hippolytus. 

6  Fragment  preserved  by  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  VII.  xxx.  4  and  5  (A-NF 
VI.  170-171). 


m     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Paul  held  that  the  Son  or  Logos  (merely  the  impersonal  wisdom  of 
God)  dwelt  in  the  man  Christ  as  we  live  in  houses.  The  time  when 
the  Son  or  Logos  first  came  to  the  man  Jesus  was,  he  thought,  not 
at  the  baptism,  but  at  His  very  birth.  This  opinion  seems  to  have 
been  held  also  by  Beryllus,  bishop  of  Bostra  (about  240),  who, 
denying  Christ's  preexistence,  said  that  "He  did  not  possess 
Divinity,  but  that  the  divine  paternity  only  took  up  its  abode  in 
Him."  I 

All  these  early  views,  implying  a  denial  of  the  Fathers'  inter- 
pretation of  Luke  ii.  49,  were  heretical.  They  were  condemned  by 
synods;  they  were  refuted  by  orthodox  writers.2  The  fact  that 
the  Church  looked  upon  these  views  as  heretical  intimates  that  the 
contrary  view  was  regarded  as  orthodox.  It  is  an  indirect  indica- 
tion that  the  view  of  the  early  Church  concerning  Luke  ii.  49,  was 
the  one  expressed  by  the  Fathers  in  their  comments  on  the  passage. 

1  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  VI.  xxxiii.  Lucianus,  presbyter  of  Antioch,  is  said  by 
Theodoret  (Eccles.  Hist.  I.  3)  to  be  the  successor  of  Paul  of  Samosata.  Another 
man  affected  by  Antiochean  influence  was  Theodore  of  Mopsuesetia  (428).  In  the 
words  of  the  II.  Cone.  Constantinople  (553)  which  condemned  Theodore,  he  held 
that  Christ  "as  a  mere  man  was  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  obtained  by  this  baptism  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  became  worthy  of  Sonship"  (n.  XII.).  Another  man  many  centuries  later, 
Faustus  Socinus  (1539-1604),  had  many  affinities  with  Paul  of  Samosata.  To  him, 
Christ  was  a  deified  man  but  not  God,  and  he  taught  that  Christ  in  His  baptism 
was  endowed  with  miraculous  power. 

2  Against  the  "falsely  called  Gnostics,"  Irenaeus,  among  other  arguments, 
triumphantly  appeals  to  the  annunciation  of  the  angels  to  the  shepherds  that 
"there  is  born  in  the  house  of  David,  a  Saviour  who  is  Christ  the  Lord,"  Luke  ii.  11, 
(Adv.  Haer.  III.  10,  3),  and  he  refutes  the  contention  that  "Christ"  or  the  "so- 
called  Superior  Saviour  descended  upon  Jesus  at  His  baptism  (Adv.  Haer.  III. 
17,  18).  St.  John  Chrysostom  refutes  the  contentions  of  Marcion  and  Paul  of 
Samosata,  pointing  to  the  fact  that  the  Magi  worshipped  the  Child  Jesus.  "Let 
Marcion  be  ashamed,  beholding  God  worshipped  in  the  flesh;  let  Paul  be  ashamed, 
beholding  Him  worshipped  as  not  being  merely  a  man"  (in  Matt.  Horn.  VII. 
5;  cf.  In.  Phil.  Horn.  VII;  Irenaeus  Adv.  Haer.  III.  9,  2).  Against  the  Ebionites' 
view  that  "Christ"  came  to  the  man  Jesus  at  His  baptism,  Epiphanius  not  only 
appeals  to  the  facts  of  Christ's  Childhood,  but  in  a  special  way  appeals  to  Christ's 
words  given  in  Luke  ii.  49. 


SECTION  II 

LATER  PERIOD  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE 

QUESTION 


CHAPTER  IV 

FROM  THE  FATHERS  TO  THE  RISE  OF  MODERN 
RATIONALISM 

1.    FROM   THE   EIGHTH   TO  THE  TWELFTH   CENTURY 

The  commentators  who  immediately  followed  the  Fathers 
are  unanimous  in  inferring  real  Divine  Sonship  from  Jesus'  earliest 
recorded  words,  Luke  ii.  49,  and  nearly  all  of  them  see  a  contrast 
between  these  words  and  the  words  of  the  Virgin  Mother  in  the 
preceding  verse.1 

Bede  (►^735)  explicitly  points  out  the  force  of  the  contrast  in 
Christ's  words  and  the  question  of  Mary.  He  writes:  "He 
(Christ)  did  not  refuse  to  have  Joseph  as  His  parent,  but  simply 
and  clearly  insinuated  to  us,  as  well  as  to  them,  who  is  His  real 
Father  (simpliciter  et  aperte  qui  sit  verus  sibi  pater,  nobis  pariter 
et  illis  insinuat)."  2  Again  he  says,  "Not  because  they  sought  Him 
as  their  Son  does  He  blame  them,  but  He  draws  their  attention 
to  what  He  owes  Him,  of  Whom  He  is  the  eternal  Son  (sed  quid  ei 
potius  cui  aeternus  est  filius  debeat,  cogit  oculos  mentis  attollere)."3 

Bede  in  a  sermon  goes  further  in  his  deduction  from  Christ's 
first  words.  Jesus'  words  are  an  indication  of  Divine  majesty; 
"Divinae  majestatis  indicium  fuit,  de  qua  alibi  dicit:  Omnia 
quaecumque  habet  Pater  mea  sunt;  atque  ideo  rectissime  templum 
non  minus  ad  se  quam  ad  Patrem  pertinere  testatur."  4  Evidently 
he  gives  Iv  toT<;  a  wider  interpretation  than  any  of  the  Fathers, 
seeming  to  understand  by  it  all  the  things  (omnia  quaecumque)  of 
the  Father,  and  among  others,  the  Temple  which  He  testified  also 

1  This  is  done  by  works  of  uncertain  date  of  this  period.  Catenae  Graecorum 
Patrum  (edit.  A.  Cramer  II.  27)  has,  "My  Father  is  not  Joseph  but  God,  who  is 
Lord  of  the  temple."  An  ancient  treatise  on  Luke  says,  that  Jesus'  earliest  words 
were  to  "remove  the  suspicion  caused  by  Mary's  words"  and  to  show  "that  His 
Father  is  God  and  not  Joseph"  (M.PG  CVI.  1189). 

2  In  Lucae  evang.  I.,  M.PL  XCII.  348. 
8  Id.  350. 

*  Homil.  XII.  in  Dominica  prima  past  Epiph.,  M.PL  XCIV.  65. 

29 


30     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

belonged  to  Him.  Also  besides  "Temple"  he  mentions  "majesty 
and  glory,"  for  he  adds,  "Quia  in  his  quae  Patris  mei  sunt  oportet 
me  esse;  quia  nimirum  quorum  una  est  majestas  et  gloria,  horum 
etiam  una  sedes  ac  domus  est;  nee  solum  materialis  Dei  domus, 
sed  etiam  domus  intellectualis."  Thus  this  scholar  branches  off 
into  the  symbolical  interpretation,  and  says  finally  (expressing  in 
an  emphatic  way  an  interpretation  of  Divinity)  that  Christ's 
words  are  a  declaration  of  His  eternal  power  and  majesty,  "decla- 
ratio  est  consempiternae  Deo  Patri  potestatis  et  gloriae."  l 

The  contrast  in  Jesus'  words  and  Mary's  reference  to  Joseph 
as  "father,"  is  recognized  by  Alcuin  (^804),  for  he  says  the  pur- 
pose of  the  words  was  to  point  out  that  His  Father  is  God  rather 
than  Joseph  ("ut  ostenderet  Patrem  suum  esse  Deum  magis  quam 
Joseph").2 

Photius  (^891)  interprets  iv  toc<;  symbolically,  "the  illustrious 
people  who  are  called  the  temple  and  house  of  the  Father."  He 
continues  (interpreting  real  Divine  Sonship)  "and  while  the  Son 
clearly  proclaimed  His  own  Father"  (t&v  T&tov  liaiiga,  aacpwq 
avaxT)p6£avT0<;  tou  Ylou)  clearly  also  were  revealed  the  thoughts 
of  those  who  said  He  was  not  the  son  of  a  carpenter  nor  born  of  any 
earthly  man  but  of  Him  Who  begot  Him  before  all  time."  3  In 
another  work,  after  quoting  Luke  ii.  49  Photius  asks,  "What  is 
clearer  than  this,  or  more  efficacious  for  closing  the  mouths  of  the 
impious?"  and  goes  on  to  give  a  paraphrase  of  Christ's  own  words 
thus:  IlaTYjp  i\kbq  d)orj0to<;,  wxep  ccvc£pwTai  t6  fep6v.  Tec  hk  tou 
IIaTp&<;  xavTa  iaily  i[L<i.  Ouxouv  oux  I8st  I^tqtsTv  aXXaxou,  ££6v 
eupiaxsiv  £v  Totq  tou  IlaTpoq.4  So  that  this  writer  sees  in  Christ's 
saying  not  only  a  declaration  that  God  is  His  true  Father,  but  also 
a  declaration  that  all  the  things  of  the  Father  are  His. 

The  opposition  in  Jesus'  words,  "My  Father"  and  "Thy 
father"  used  in  reference  to  Joseph,  is  brought  out  by  Haymo  of 
Halberstadt  (^895)  in  his  comments:  "quis  verus  pater  ejus  sit 
ipse  manifestat,"  again,  "utramque  suam  naturam  Dominus  nobis 
commendat."  Besides  he  says,  "the  Temple,  the  prophets,  and 
the    frequent   meditation    on   Divine   Scripture   belong   to   His 

1  Id.  66. 

2  Adv.  Felicem,  IV.  1,  12,  M.PL  CI.  137. 

8  Ad.  Amphilochium,  CLVIL,  M.PG  CI.  832. 
«  Contra  Manichaeos,  IV.  16,  M.PG  CII.  B.  213. 


THE  RISE  OF  MODERN  RATIONALISM  31 

Father,"  and  "beautifully  in  these  His  works  He  demonstrated 
that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,"  —  pulchre  in  his  suis  operibus  Filium 
Dei  se  demonstravit.1 

Simeon  Metaphrastes  (^970)  has  a  number  of  remarks  on 
Luke  ii.  49;  the  following  are  a  selection.  "Mary  had  spoken  of 
Joseph  as  father;  Christ,  as  it  were,  correcting  what  was  said  spoke 
of  One  who  was  real  Father"  (6  Xpt<ru&s  ftaiuep  zb  $t)Qh  SiopOoujxe- 
voq  xspl  toO  ovtgx;  Xiyet  IlaTp&s).  "He  showed  He  was  by  nature 
God,  since  a  son  has  the  same  nature  as  his  father"  (outw  Sebtvuatv 
eocuT&v  ovtoc  <puast  ©s6v,  e'tyei  ir^q  ocuttjc;   (puaswc;  6  xalq  T(j>  Tex6vn). 

"He  shows  that  the  Father's  house,  evidently  the  Temple, 
and  besides,  all  the  things  of  the  Father,  are  His.  He  points  out 
it  is  rather  they  who  are  to  be  blamed  for  not  knowing  these  things, 
and  for  not  saying  or  thinking  the  truth  of  things.  Here  for  the 
first  time  He  makes  more  open  mention  of  His  true  Father  and 
reveals  His  Divinity"  (ivrauGa  ^pwtox;  tou  iXiqOwc;  IIaTp&<; 
^avepwTspov  jJLVT)(Jiovs6et  xal  xapayu^vol  auxou  ty)v  be6if]xa).2  In 
one  statement  after  another,  this  writer  most  explicitly  gives  ex- 
pression to  his  interpretation  of  Divinity  and  brings  out  the 
significance  of  the  contrast  in  Christ's  words  and  the  words  of 
Mary. 

Another  commentator,  who  infers  Christ's  Divine  Sonship 
from  this  contrast,  is  Theophylact  (>£<1107).  He  writes,  "Since 
Mary  had  called  Joseph  'father'  He  replied,  'He  is  not  my  true 
father,  otherwise  I  would  be  in  his  house;  but  God  is  My  Father'  " 
(oux  <ztk6<;  !<jtIv  6  c«Xtq0tq<;  [aou  xaTirjp,  ^  Y&p  <2v  £v  Tcp  oYxcp  ocijtoO 
i^v,  dXk'  b  @s6<;  iail  ^jlo  u  xaTTQp.)  3 

Euthymius  Zigabenus  (^1118)  thus  points  out  the  contrast: 
"His  mother  had  spoken  of  His  adopted  father;  He  manifested  to 
her  Him  Who  was  Father  by  nature"  (auzbq  8£  tocuth  t6v  <puaei 
n<ZT£pa  auTou  iyvtoptae).4 

A  reflection  of  Bede's  exegesis  is  given  by  Zacharias  Chryso- 
politanus  (►£<].  155).  After  quoting  the  text,  he  writes:  "Non 
quod  eum  quasi  filium  quaerent  vituperat,  sed  cogit  eos  attollere 
mentis  oculos  ad  quaerendum  quid  debeat  aeterno  Patri,  ostendens 

1  Homil.  XVII.,  M.PL  CXVIII.  124. 

2  Vita  sanctorum,  etc.,  M.PG  CXV.  548. 

8  Ennaratio  in  evang.  Lucae,  M.PG  CXXIII.  733. 
4  Commentar.  in  Lucam,  M.PG  CXXIX.  B.  897. 


32     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

et  templum  et  omnia  quae  Patris  sunt,  non  minus  ad  se  quam  ad 
Patrem  pertinere,  quorum  una  est  majestas."  l  The  position  of 
the  writers  of  this  period,  on  Luke  ii.  49,  is  epitomized  in  the  above 
quotation :  the  interpreting  real  Divine  Sonship  from  the  contrast 
with  the  preceding  verse,  the  taking  a  wide  view  of  £v  to!<;,  "Tem- 
ple and  all  the  things  of  the  Father,  of  which  one  is  majesty." 2 

2.  FROM  THE  THIRTEENTH  CENTURY  TO  THE  EIGHTEENTH 

A,  The  Medieval  Theologians 

John  Scotus  Erigena  (ninth  century),  a  forerunner  of  the 
Scholasticism  of  the  Middle  Ages,  held  that  as  Christ  was  the 
Wisdom  of  the  Father  to  Whom  nothing  was  hid,  and  as  He  had 
accepted  a  stainless  human  nature  (incontaminatam  humanita- 
tem),  He  never  suffered  the  ignorance  inflicted  as  a  punishment 
on  fallen  man;  but  from  His  very  conception  He  knew  Himself 
and  all  things  and  could  speak  and  teach  (confestim,  ut  conceptus 
et  natus  est,  et  seipsum  et  omnia  intellexit,  ac  loqui  et  docere 
potuit).3  This  doctrine  presupposes  the  view  of  real  Divine  Son- 
ship  as  expressed  by  Christ  in  His  first  recorded  words. 

The  first  writer  of  a  Summa  Theologiae  incorporating  Aristo- 
telian philosophy,  Alexander  of  Hales  (^1245),  maintains  that 
Christ  did  not  assume  ignorance,  did  not  learn  anything  from 
angels,  but  enjoyed  a  threefold  knowledge:  the  Beatific  Vision, 
uncreated  knowledge,  and  the  knowledge  of  experience.  In  a 
certain  kind  of  the  latter  knowledge,  Christ  made  advance;  the 
rest  He  had  from  the  beginning.4 

1  In  unum  ex  quatuor,  I.  2,  M.PL  CLXXXVI.  88. 

2  There  are  other  writers  of  the  twelfth  century  who  refer  to  the  Lucan  text. 
Bruno,  in  his  commentary  on  St.  Luke,  interprets  it  symbolically:  "An  nesciebatis 
quia  in  his  quae  Patris  mei  sunt,  et  inter  eos  qui  Patris  mei  voluntaten  faciunt, 
oportet  me  esse"  (M.PL  CLXV.  365).  Identical  words  are  found  in  Anselm's  Homil. 
VII.  in  Evang.  secundum  Luc.  (Opera,  edit.  Gerberon,  p.  172).  Aelredus  has  a 
treatise,  De  Jesu  Puero  Duodenni;  but  concerning  the  Boy's  words,  he  merely  says, 
"jam  hie  coelestium  mysteriorum  in  quibus  per  triduum  fuerat  observatus  incipit 
reserare  secretum"  (M.PL  CLXXXIV.  855).  Isaac  of  Stella,  in  his  second  sermon 
for  the  Sunday  within  the  Octave  of  the  Epiphany,  has  this  in  reference  to  the 
passage:  "excepta  tamen  hac  unitate  naturae,  et  naturali  unitate  Patris  et  Filii, 
a  qua  non  recessit,  nee  Pater,  nee  Filius:  etiam  in  sua  mineratione  non  recessit 
Filius  a  Patre  dum  in  ejus  semper  mansit  obedientia  et  voluntate"  (M.PL  CXCIV. 
1777). 

« De  Divisione  Naturae,  IV.  10,  M.PL  CXXII.  777. 
4  Summa  Theologiae,  pars  III.  quest.  XIII.  43-45. 


THE  RISE  OF  MODERN  RATIONALISM  33 

That  Christ  had  a  manifold  knowledge  (cognitionem  multi- 
plicem)  was  held  by  Albert  the  Great  (^1280).  His  division  is 
much  the  same  as  the  previous  writer,  but  he  explains  Christ's 
advance  in  knowledge  as  according  to  manifestation  (secundum 
ostensionem).1  Albert's  pupil,  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin  (►£1274),  who 
laid  down  the  lasting  lines  of  Catholic  theology,  has  a  treatise  on 
"The  Perfection  of  the  Child  conceived"  in  which  he  states  that 
"Christ,  in  the  first  instant  of  His  conception,  had  the  fulness  of 
sanctifying  grace,  the  fulness  of  known  truth,  free  will  and  the  bea- 
tific vision."2  In  his  treatise  on  Christ's  knowledge  St.  Thomas 
says,  that  as  man  Christ  had  a  threefold  knowledge,  the  Beatific 
Vision,  infused  knowledge,  and  acquired  knowledge;  in  the  last 
alone  He  made  progress.3 

These  views  of  the  perfection  of  Christ's  knowledge  from  the 
beginning,  imply  the  interpretation  of  real  Divine  Sonship  from 
the  words  of  the  Boy  Jesus  recorded  by  St.  Luke.  And  other 
writers  of  this  period  express  much  the  same  views,  for  they  were 
incorporated  in  systematized  Catholic  theology.  Thus  Dionysius 
the  Carthusian  (^1471)  taught,  that  from  the  first  moment  of  His 
conception  Christ  was  a  perfect  man,  that  he  was  perfect  "not 
by  reason  of  His  age,  but  on  account  of  the  fulness  of  grace,  the 
eminent  degree  of  virtues  and  the  perfection  of  wisdom,"  and  that 
Christ  made  no  advance  in  these  excepting  in  regard  to  the  exer- 
cise of  them  (sed  quantum  ad  exercitium).4 


B.   Commentators  of  this  Period 

It  may  be  said  in  general,  that  the  commentators  who  lived 
between  the  thirteenth  and  the  nineteenth  centuries  follow  in  the 
footsteps  of  the  previous  writers  interpreting  Luke  ii.  49,  in  the 
sense  of  real  Divine  Sonship,  and  recognizing  a  contrast  between 
these  words  and  the  words  of  Mary.    Concerning  the  interpreta- 

1  In  Lib.  III.  Sent.  dist.  XIII.  art.  XI.  XII.  Opera  (edit.  Jammy,  Lugduni  1651) 
XV.  140-141. 

2Summa  Theologica,  pars  III.  quest.  XXXIV.  (transl.  III.  2,  pp.  96-104). 

8  Summa  Theologica,  pars  III.  quest.  IX.-XII.  (transl.  III.  1,  pp.  145-184).  For 
other  references  to  Christ's  knowledge  see  Abelard,  Sic  et  Non,  LXXII,  M.PL 
CLXXVIII.  1444-7;  John  Duns  Scotus,  Lib.  III.  Sent.  dist.  XIV.  quest.  II.-IV. 
Opera  (edit.  Weddingi,  Parisiis,  1894)  XIV.  pp.  488  ff.,  etc. 

4  Comment,  in  Ps.  I.  art.  IX.  Opera  V.  409. 


34     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

tion  of  Divinity  and  Divine  Sonship,  it  is  sometimes  stated 
explicitly  and  emphatically,  yet  more  often  implied.  As  to  the 
contrast,  we  often  find  statements  which  point  out  the  force  of  the 
contrast  such  as :  Christ  as  it  were  corrected  His  mother  who  had 
called  Joseph  Father;  He  opposed  the  Person  and  claims  of  His 
true  Father,  God,  to  those  of  the  earthly  parents;  He  states  He  is 
more  closely  connected  with  God  than  with  them,  and  hence  they 
should  not  wonder  if  He  neglects  or  dismisses  them  for  God. 

Thus  Bonaventure  (^1274)  paraphrases  Christ's  words: 
"Unde  non  debet  is  mirari  si  vos  dimisi  propter  Patrem  aeternum.,,1 
And  as  a  supplement  to  this  is  the  paraphrase  of  Albert  the  Great 
(already  mentioned) :  "  Patris  veri  substantialis  et  aeterni,  cui  plus 
debeo  quam  vobis."  2  Both  of  these  ideas  are  found  in  Ludolphus 
of  Saxony  (^1335),  who  besides  says  of  the  relationship  of  the 
words  of  the  Son  and  the  Mother:  "  quasi  corrigendo  verbum 
matris." 3  The  line  of  thought  of  these  writers  is  implied  in 
Nicholas  of  Lyra's  (^1340)  comment  on  passage:  "  magis  enim 
afficiebatur  ad  patrem  naturalem  et  aeternum  quam  ad  matrem 
naturalem  et  patrem  putativum."  4 

The  early  Reformers  made  no  change  in  the  exegesis  of  Jesus' 
first  words.  Thus  Luther  (^1546)  says  of  them:  "Als  sollt  er 
sagen:  Ich  bin  ja  eur  Sohn;  aber  doch  also  dass  ich  mehr  jenes 
Sonn  bin,  der  im  Himmel  ist."6  The  same  idea  is  expressed  by 
Melanchthon  (^1560),6  Hofmeister  (^1562), 7  Calovius  (>£<1686),8 
and  J.  C.  Michaelis  (wrote  1735).9  As  to  Catholic  writers  Mal- 
donatus  (^1583)  explicitly  states  that  Christ  opposed  the  Person 
of  God  His  Father  to  the  person  of  Joseph:  "  Personam  vero  Dei 
Patris    personae    hominis    patris    opponit  .  .  .  docet    se    alium 

1  Comment,  in  Luc.  ad  loc.  Opera  omnia,  VII.  68. 

8  In  Evang.  Luc.  ad  loc.  Opera  omnia,  XXII.  2551. 

8  Vita  Christi,  38(b). 

4  Biblia  latina  cum  postillis,  IV.  ad  loc. 

6  Luthers  Werke  (deutsche),  I.  153.  There  is  no  doubt  that  Luther  understands 
real  Sonship  from  what  he  adds:  Offenbaret  sich  also  umb  unsertwillen,  dass  wir 
ihn  recht  sollen  kennen  und  einbilden  lernen,  dass  er  nit  allein  ein  wahrer  Mensch, 
sonder  auch  wahrer  Gott  sei. 

8  Sermon  for  Sunday  I  after  Epiph.  Opera  omnia,  XXIV.  368,  he  says:  Discernit 
patrem  suum  a  Joseph. 

T  "  Vides  iam  quis  verus  hujus  pueri  pater."    In  Evang.  Luc.  ad  loc.  213. 

8"Partim  ad  Patrem  verum  propriumque  revocat  corrigens  dictum  Matris," 
Biblia  illustrata,  ad  loc. 

•Christ  signifies,  "se  quidem  aeternum  patris  filium  carne  humana  indutum" 
Exercitatio  theol.-philol.  ad  Luc.  ii.  49,  in  Miscell.  Gronig.  I.  274. 


THE  RISE  OF  MODERN  RATIONALISM  35 

veriorem  cui  magis  obedire  debeat  patrem  habere."  l  So  does 
Toletus  (^1600) :  "Opponit  autem  parentibus  Patrem  aeternum."2 
Lucas  (^1619)  too,  interprets:  "  quod nonillum  sed alium  praestan- 
tiorem  ac  sublimiorem  Deum,  inquam  agnoscat  Patrem.' ' 3  The 
opposition  of  Christ's  words  to  those  of  His  mother  is  referred  to 
by  Cornelius  Jansenius  Yprensis  (^1638) :  "  Negotia  Patris 
negotiis  humanis  societati  videlicet  parentum  opponit  ";4  and  by 
Sylveira  (^1687) :  "  Recurrit  ad  praeceptum  Patris  naturalis  quo 
obligabatur."  8 

There  is  no  question  then  that  these  writers  understand  there 
is  a  contrast  between  Jesus'  reply  and  the  question  of  Mary,  and 
that  the  contrast  was  equivalent  to  an  assertion  of  Divine 
Paternity.  Indeed  some  of  the  writers  of  this  period  argue  in 
favor  of  the  true  Divine  Sonship  from  the  fact  that  Christ  said 
"My  Father"  and  not  "our  Father."  This  is  done  by  Stella 
(*1571),6  Cajetan  (*1530) 7  and  Cartwright  (^1603) 8  and  Sylveira 
(already  mentioned). 

What  is  characteristic  of  this  period,  is  the  view  of  the  writers 
as  to  what  is  signified  by  iv  toT<;.  As  we  saw,  the  writers  of  the 
previous  period,  speaking  generally,  understood  "the  Temple  and 
all  things  (of  the  Father)."  Making  a  further  development  of 
this  matter,  the  commentators,  with  whom  we  are  now  dealing, 
selected  and  emphasized  from  these  "things"  the  Father's  Will 
or  works,  or  (on  the  part  of  Christ)  Jesus'  mission,  office,  function, 
Messiahship.  Hugo  de  SJCaro! (►J<1263)  may  be  referring  to 
Christ's  mission  when  he  explains  iv  toI<;  as  "in  locis  et  templo  et 
in  operibus." 9  Certainly,  Bona  venture  (^1274)  holds  that 
Christ  referred  to  His  mission,  saying  that  Luke  ii.  49  agrees  with 
John  vi.  38.10  That  the  Boy  Christ  mentioned  He  was  doing  the 

1  Comment,  in  quat.  Evang.  ad  loc.  II.  123. 
a  Commentarii.  ad  loc.  p.  217. 

3  Comment,  ad  loc.    Given  in  Migne,  Cursus  S.  S.  XXII.  465. 

4  Tetrateuchus  sive  Comment,  ad  loc.  II.  78. 

5  Comment,  in  Textum  Evang.  ad  loc.  I.  352. 
8  De  Observantia  in  S.  J.  C.  Evang.  I.  151. 

7  Comment,  ad  loc.  III.  189. 

8  Comment,  in  totam  Historiam  Evang.,  110. 

9  Postilla  super  IV.  Evang.  ad  loc.  Hugo  well  serves  as  a  connecting  link  be- 
tween the  writers  of  this  period  and  those  of  the  previous  one,  reflecting  the  views 
of  the  latter. 

10  Comment,  in  Luc.  ad  loc.  Opera  omnia,  VII.  68. 


36     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

works  of  His  Father,  is  expressed  by  Ludolphus  (^1335), J  Cajetan 
(*1535), 2  and  Faber  Stapulensis  (*1536)  .3 

By  this  time  the  view  was  widely  adopted  that  the  word  to  be 
supplied  in  Christ's  saying  was  "business";  and  this  word  is 
suggestive  of  and  almost  synonymous  with  mission.4  We  have  a 
clear  interpretation  of  mission  in  Erasmus  (^1536):  "Did  ye  not 
remember  in  your  myndes  that  I  muste  nedes  bee  aboute  my 
Fathers  business,  as  often  as  He  calleth  me  to  the  office  and  func- 
tion appoyncted  unto  me?"  5  There  is  a  reference  to  this  view  in 
Melanchthon  (^1560):  "Ita  Christus  erat  vocatus  ut  fungeret 
ministerio  in  isto  populo,  et  scivit,  se  ejus  rei  specimen  edere  debere, 
etiam  in  ilia  sua  aetate  tenere."  6  Calvin  is  many  times  explicit 
on  the  matter.  For  instance :  Principium  quoque  finem  designat, 
cur  in  mundum  missus  fuerit,  nempe  ut  munus  impleat  sibi  a 
patre  coelesti  injunctum.7 

Another  step  taken  by  the  interpreters  of  Luke  ii.  49  was  to 
say  that  this  business  or  mission  referred  to  by  Christ  was  the 
salvation  of  the  world.  Salmeron  (^1585)  does  this:  versari  in 
negotiis  Patris  Mei,  et  in  procuranda  salute  hominum.8  So  does 
Toletus  (^1600):  Opera  quae  .  .  .  ut  Redemptor,  faciebat, 
appellasse  ea  quae  patris  sunt.9  The  passage  is  explained  in  a 
Messianic  sense  by  Lucas  (^1619) :  In  negotiis  quae  Pater  Meus 
Deus  mihi  injunxit,  mandavit,  ut  Christo  suo,  ab  ipso  misso  ad 
hominum  redemptionem  ad  salutem  procurandum.10  A  some- 
what different  signification  is  given  by  Piscator   (>£d.625):    In 

1  He  gives  as  a  paraphrase  of  Christ's  words:  "in  templo,  doctrina  et  in  operibus 
quibus  manifestetur  pater  meus"  (Vita  Christi,  38). 

2  Comment,  ad  loc.  III.  189. 

8  He  has  in  his  paraphrase:  "in  domo  patris  mei  esse  ut  ilia  facerem  opera  quae 
patris  mei  sunt"  (Comment,  in  quat.  Evang.  ad  loc.). 

4  This  was  only  for  a  time.  Very  soon  the  controversy  between  the  rival 
claims  of  "house"  and  "business"  arose  to  be  continued  to  the  present  day.  Many 
commentators,  such  as  Grotius,  Hammond,  Polus,  devoted  their  remarks  on  the 
Lucan  text  entirely  to  this  controverted  question. 

6  Paraphrase  of  the  Gospels,  ad  loc.  fol.  xxxix.  In  his  Annotationes,  Erasmus 
also  writes  (referring  to  our  text) :  "Christus  suum  negotium  quod  totum  e  coelo 
pendebat  purem  esse  voluit  ab  humanis  affectibus"  (p.  169). 

6  Sermon  for  Sunday  I  after  Epiph.    Opera  omnia,  XXIV.  368. 

7  Comment,  in  Harm.  Evang.  Opera  omnia,  XLV.  106;  cf .  also  Sermon  XXXIX. 
Opera  omnia,  XL VI.  476;  Maldonatus,  Comment,  ad  loc;  Beza,  J.  C.  D.  N.  Nov. 
Test,  ad  loc.  86;  Aretius,  Comment.  D.  N.  J.  C.  Nov.  Test,  ad  loc.  304. 

8  Comment,  in  Evang.  Histor.  ad  loc. 

9  Commentarii.  p.  218. 

10  Comment,  ad  loc.    Given  in  Migne,  Cursus  S.  S.,  XXII.  465. 


THE  RISE  OF  MODERN  RATIONALISM  37 

negotiis  quae  Pater  Meus  mihi  mandavit  ad  expediendum  puta 
ad  docendum  qui  sim,  et  cujus  rei  gratia  a  patre  missus  sim  in 
mundum.1  This  view  is  also  expressed  by  Sylveira  (negotiis  mei 
Patris,  seu  saluti  generis  humani  ad  quam  veni),2  and  by  Cor- 
nelius a  Lapide  (me  negotia  saluti  generis  humani  ad  quern  a 
Patre  coelesti  missus  sum  inchoando  tractare).3 

Other  writers  who  see  in  Christ's  words  a  reference  to  His 
Messianic  mission  are,  Tirinus  (^1636) :  Patris  sui  negotia  vocat 
opera  theandrica  seu  divino-humana  Messiae  propria,4  and  Cor- 
nelius Jansenius  Yprensis  (^1638) :  cogitandum  vobis  erat  officii 
illius  mei  causa  in  quo  a  vobis  non  dependio,  me  mansisse  Jerosoly- 
mis.5  Along  the  same  lines  is  the  interpretation  of  Natalis  Alex- 
ander form)  ;6  while  J.  G.  Michaelis  (1736)  states  that  Christ 
showed  He  was  not  ignorant  of  His  priestly  office,  "se  immutabili 
Patris  consilio  pontificem  maximum  constitutum  ut  pro  hominibus 
ea  perageret,  quae  apud  Patrem  suum  coelestem  peragenda  esse 
non  ignorat."  7 

Concerning  this  period,  therefore,  it  may  be  said  that  its 
characteristic  feature  is  the  fact  that  its  commentators  saw  in 
Christ's  words  a  reference  to  His  mission,  called  by  the  later  ones 
the  salvation  of  the  world.  But,  be  it  noted,  none  of  the  writers 
states  that  Messiahship  alone  was  expressed  by  the  Lord. 

1  Comment,  in  Nov.  Test,  ad  loc.  222;  cf.  also  Corderius'  own  comments  in 
Catena,  LXV.  Patr.  Graec.,  75. 

2  Comment,  in  Textum  Evang.  ad  loc.  I.  352. 

3  Comment,  in  S.  Script.  VIII.  534. 

4  In  univers.  S.  Script.  Comment,  ad  loc.  IV.  199. 
6  Tetrateuchus  sive  Comment  ...  ad  loc.  II.  78. 

6  Exposit.  litteralis  et  moralis  S.  Evang.  ad  loc.  II.  137. 

7  Loc.  cit.  This  writer  has  a  special  section  to  show  that  Christ  here  gave  a 
prelude  of  His  priestly  office  (op.  cit.  276-282).  Many  of  the  writers  of  this  period, 
e.  g.  J.  G.  Michaelis,  see  The  Boy  Christ  fulfilling  the  prophecy  of  Malach.  iii.  1. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  MODERN  VIEWS 

Before  the  rise  of  modern  rationalism,  there  was  practically 
only  one  view  professed  in  regard  to  Christ's  reference  to  His 
Father  in  Luke  ii.  49,  —  the  view  of  real  Divine  Sonship.  Now 
there  arises  a  variety  of  views;  and  among  a  certain  class  of 
scholars  there  is  a  definite  break  with  the  past.  The  reason  for 
the  great  departure  and  the  wide  divergency  of  opinion  is  to  be 
found  in  the  a  priori  rejection  of  miracles.  This  rejection  led  some 
to  deny  the  genuineness  and  historicity  of  the  early  chapters  of  St. 
Luke,  and  the  account  of  the  Boy  Christ;  it  led  others  to 
explain  the  account  and  the  first  recorded  words  in  a  natural  sense; 
it  occasioned  the  theory  of  a  gradual  growth  or  development  in 
Christ's  view  of  Himself. 

On  account  of  these  factors,  the  rejection  of  the  miraculous, 
the  explaining  Christ's  first  words  naturally,  the  attempting  to 
trace  a  gradual  development  of  His  self-consciousness,  there  is 
among  modern  scholars  almost  every  shade  of  opinion  in  regard  to 
the  degree  of  relationship  to  God  that  the  Boy  Christ  expressed  in 
His  words.  They  may,  however,  be  classified  under  four  main 
headings. 

1.   "ordinary  israelitic  consciousness" 

The  most  extreme  view  of  Christ's  first  self-interpretation,  is 
the  view  of  ordinary  Israelitic  Consciousness.  Certain  scholars 
claim  that  Jesus'  words  could  be  said  by  any  ordinary  Jewish  boy; 
that  they  contain  no  hint  that  the  speaker  considers  Himself  the 
Messiah;  that  they  express  no  special  relationship  with  God; 
that  the  sense  in  which  God  was  called  "Father"  is  the  sense  in 
which  any  ordinary  Israelite  of  that  day  spoke  of  God  as 
"Father." 

The  first  to  attempt  to  trace  a  development  in  the  self-con- 

38 


THE  MODERN  VIEWS  39 

sciousness  of  Jesus  and  thus  to  introduce  this  modern  problem  was 
Karl  Hase  (Life  of  Christ,  1829).  He  held  that  in  His  childhood 
Christ  had  no  Messianic  consciousness.1  Being  uncertain  whether 
Christ  became  fully  aware  of  His  mission  before  His  Public  Life, 
he  says  that  the  first  words  indicate  "an  unpausing  development" 
showing  "the  same  sense  of  the  nearness  of  God  in  a  purely  human 
and  childish  form  which  is  the  idea  of  His  life."2  Gess  contends 
that  in  no  "exceptional  sense"  Jesus  said  "the  God  of  Israel"  is 
His  Father.3 

Explicitly  denying  to  the  twelve-year-old  Boy  any  conscious- 
ness of  Divine  Sonship  or  Messiahship,  Schenkel  sees  in  His 
words  "an  early  presentiment  ...  of  His  destined  devotion  to 
the  concerns  of  the  Divine  Kingdom,  of  His  duty  to  subordinate 
earthly  duties  to  His  eternal  calling."4  Even  "this  presentiment 
or  foreboding  of  His  destiny"5  is  rejected  by  B.  Weiss,  who  views 
Luke  ii.  49,  as  an  "expression  of  a  genuine  Israelitic  consciousness, 
containing  nothing  contrary  to  the  'usus  loquendi'  of  the  Old 
Testament."  The  same  stand,  in  different  words,  is  taken  by 
Oscar  Holtzmann6  and  by  H.  Holtzmann.7  This  mode  of  ex- 
plaining Christ's  words  as  a  predilection  for  things  spiritual  — 
the  word  "Father"  having  only  a  religious  sense  —  is  also  adopted 
by  Feine,8  M.  J.  Weber,9  and  Kent.10  Daab  gives  a  slight 
reference  to  Luke  ii.  49,11  and  then  goes  on  to  indicate  Christ's 
religious  development.12  Much  the  same  thing  is  done  by 
Stapfer.13 

*Life  of  J.,  66.  Schweitzer  says  about  this  author  "Hase  created  the  modern 
historicco-psycholgical  picture  of  Jesus."    (Quest  of  the  Historical  J.,  61.) 

2  Idem,  51.  In  a  later  work,  Geschichte  Jesu  (1876),  224,  he  admits  that  there  is 
expressed  in  Jesus'  words,  "sein  ganzes  Verhaltniss  zur  Gottheit,"  yet  insists  it  is 
only  the  saying  of  a  pious  child. 

3  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  271. 

*  Das  Charakterbild  J.  36,  Eng.  transl.,  59. 

6  Life  of  Christ,  I.  279;  cf.  Comment,  in  New  Test.,  R.  24-25. 

6  Leben  Jesu,  76,  transl.,  100. 

7  Hand-Comment.  I.  151. 

8  Theologie  des  n.  T.,  104,  114.  In  another  work  casting  doubts  on  the  genuine- 
ness of  our  passage,  this  writer  says  it  denotes  that  Christ  felt  Himself  a  special  man 
with  a  special  relation  to  God.    (Eine  Vorkanonische  tJberlieferung  d.  Luk.,  25.) 

9  La  methode  d'education  .  .  .  ,  12. 

10  The  Life  and  Teachings  of  J.,  54. 

11  Jesus  von  Naz.,  48. 

12  Id.,  48-50. 

13  J.  C.  before  His  Ministry,  39-127. 


40     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

With  the  exception  of  a  few  extremists  1  who  hold  that  Christ 
never  announced  that  He  was  the  Messiah,  and  with  the  exception 
of  a  few 2  who  hold  that  it  was  only  toward  the  end  of  the  Public 
Ministry  that  profession  of  Messiahship  was  made  by  Jesus,  the 
bulk  of  negative  scholars  date  the  dawn  of  Christ's  Messianic 
consciousness  at  His  baptism.3 

Placing  the  birth  of  His  messianic  consciousness  at  the  baptism, 
not  a  few  of  these  scholars  such  as  Martin,4  Neumann,5  Bousset,6 
reject  Luke  ii.  49  as  unhistorical.  Others  such  as  Dickey,7  and 
H.  Miller,8  declare  that  the  text  may  not  be  historical,  "but  it  is 
certainly  in  keeping  with  any  inference  that  may  be  fairly  drawn 
from  His  later  development."  Others,  in  fact  the  majority  of 
these  scholars,  take  for  granted  the  unhistorical  character  of  the 
Temple  episode  and  deliberately  overlook  Christ's  first  words  when 
treating  of  His  self -consciousness;  such  as  Harnack,9  Wernle,10 
Guinebert,11  Bacon,12  Weinel,13  Schweitzer.14  This  is  also  done  in 
some  special  treatises  on  Christ's  self -consciousness,  such  as  those 
of    Baldensperger,15    E.    Schurer,16    H.    Holtzmann,17    Spaeth,18 

1  Wellhausen,  Israelitische  und  jiid.  Gesehichte  (1885),  342,  Einleitung  in 
die  drei  ersten  Evang.  (1905),  92.  Wrede,  Das  Messias  Geheimnis  in  den  Evang. 
(1901).  Martineau,  The  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion  (1905),  357.  Cf .  Cairns,  The 
Self-assertion  of  Jesus,  Contemp.  Rev.  LXXXV  (1904)  362.  Nat.  Schmidt,  The 
Prophet  of  Naz.  (1905),  261.    Merx,  Die  vier  kannonischen  Evang.  (1905-1911). 

2  Such  as  Schenkel,  op.  cit.,  P.  W.  Schmidt,  Jesus  in  Modern  Criticism,  38-42. 
For  the  wider  view  on  Christ's  Messianic  consciousness  see  Faut,  Christologie  seit 
Schleiermacher,  78-81. 

8  Cf .  R.  Mackintosh,  The  dawn  of  the  Messianic  Consciousness,  Exp.  T.  XVI 
(1905)  157-158  and  211-215;  also  Dickey,  The  Significance  of  the  Baptism  of  J. 
BW  XXXVII  (1911),  359-368. 

<  Life  of  Jesus,  76,  84. 

8  This  writer  says  the  text  was  formulated  by  a  later  hand,  but  "in  any  case,  the 
term  Father  is  used  here  in  a  purely  religious  sense."    Jesus,  47-48. 

6  Jesus,  1,  8. 

7  Significance  of  the  Bapt.  of  J.,  BW  XXXVII  (1911)  366. 

8  Our  knowledge  of  Christ,  51,  56,  57.  Cf.  Life  of  Jesus,  in  the  Light  .  .  . ,  BW 
XLIII  (1914)  75  ff. 

9  What  is  Christianity?  36,  149. 

10  The  Beginning  of  Christianity,  46. 

11  Manuel  d'hist.  anc.  du  Chret.,  179. 

12  Christianity,  Old  and  New,  156,  161. 
18  Jesus  in  the  Nineteenth  Cent.,  151. 
14  Quest,  of  the  Historical  J.,  370,  384. 

16  Das  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu  im  Lichte  der  messianischen  Hoffnungen  seiner 
Zeit. 

16  Das  messianische  Selbstbewusstsein  J.  C;  cf.  p.  13. 

17  Das  messianische  Bewusstsein  J. 

18  Die  Entwickelung  J.,  6. 


THE  MODERN  VIEWS  41 

O.  Holtzmann,1  von  Sodon,2  Volter.3  Also  a  number  of  moderns, 
when  considering  Jesus'  earliest  recorded  sayings,  hesitate  and  are 
not  willing  to  express  an  opinion,4  and  others  according  to  their 
interpretations  see  very  little  self -consciousness  therein  expressed.5 


2. 

Somewhat  different  from  the  view  just  described  is  that  held 
by  another  class  of  modern  scholars,  who  say:  Christ's  first  words 
would  not  be  used  by  an  ordinary  Jewish  boy;  they  indicate  that 
the  Boy  Christ  had  an  exceptional  self-consciousness,  expressing 
a  very  special  relationship  to  God,  a  conception  of  personal  sonship 
without  parallel  in  previous  history.  But  this  sonship  was  only 
religious,  moral,  ethical,  an  intense  feeling  of  love  and  devotion; 
it  was  not  real  Divine  Sonship,  nor  did  it  denote  messianic  con- 
sciousness, which  arose  later. 

In  the  first  place  there  are  two  scholars  belonging  to  this  class, 
O.  Pfleiderer6  and  J.  Weiss,7  who  see,  in  the  text  as  it  stands,  an 
expression  of  special  ethical  sonship,  yet  at  the  same  time  con- 
tending that  it  is  not  genuine. 

There  are  other  scholars  who,  adhering  to  the  genuineness  of 
the  Lucan  passage,  derive  therefrom  the  view  of  special  ethical 
sonship.  Such  is  Keim,  who  thinks  that  in  Christ's  first  words 
"lay  the  inkling  of  an  infinite  claim  on  the  near  regard  of  the 
heavenly  Father,  of  a  Divine  Sonship,  outbidding  far  the  earthly 
in  enjoyment,  in  right,  in  duty."8  Reinhard  argues  from  the  use 
of  the  words  "My  Father"  that  Jesus  here  "expresses  a  clear  and 

1  Das  Messiasbewusstsein  Jesu  und  seine  neueste  Bestreitung. 

2  Die  wichtigsten  Fragen  im  Leben  Jesu,  see  95,  98. 

3  Jesus  der  Menschensohn  oder  das  Berufsbewusstsein  Jesu. 

<  Thus  Farmer  (Boyhood  of  J.,  HDG  1226),  Anderson  (The  Man  of  Naz., 
41-43),  R.  Mackintosh  (Dawn  of  the  Messianic  Consc,  ExpT  XVI  (1905)  212;  cf. 
215). 

6  Abbott  (Life  of  C,  80),  Neander  (Life  of  C,  31),  Boardmann  (The  Divine 
Man  .  .  .  ,  225,  226),  Hamyln  (ExpT  XXVII  (1915)  43),  Peabody  (The  Charac- 
ter of  J.  C,  HJ  I  (1903),  645),  Fairbain  (Studies  in  the  Life  of  C,  59),  Kilpatrick 
(Character  of  C,  HDC  I.  284),  Montefiori  (Synoptic  Gospels,  II.  864),  Carpenter 
(Christianity  ace.  to  S.  Luke,  172,  173). 

6  Primitive  Christianity,  II.  113. 

7  Die  Schriften  des  n.  T.,  I.  430-431. 

8  Jesus  of  Naz.,  II.  133.  The  view  of  Schleiermacher  (Das  Leben  Jesu,  83-116) 
is  a  special  relation  to  God,  yet  a  natural  human  development. 


42     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

full  consciousness  of  His  sustaining  a  higher  relation  to  God  than 
mankind  in  general."  l  Dickenson  calls  the  words  "the  first 
human  consciousness  of  the  holy  God  as  the  Father  of  the  indi- 
vidual soul.,,  2  Godet  states  that  the  word  "My"  in  Jesus'  reply 
gives  to  His  consciousness  "of  His  filial  relationship  with  God  a 
peculiar  and,  as  it  were,  exceptional  significance,"  3  and  in  another 
work  he  writes  that  "the  words  'My  Father'  were  the  first  revela- 
tion of  a  relation  which  surpassed  all  that  Judaism  had  realized."  4 
Giving  Luke  ii.  49  as  an  instance,  Beyschlag  states  that  "the  name 
'Father'  on  the  lips  of  Jesus  is  the  expression  of  a  purely  personal 
relation  that  has  no  equal."  5  Wendt  infers  from  the  text  that 
from  His  childhood  Jesus  "was  clearly  sensible  of  the  fatherly 
love  of  God  and  His  filial  relationship  to  God."  6  On  the  basis  of 
this  Temple  episode,  too,  Denny  considers  Christ's  consciousness 
of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  "as  something  realized  in  Him  as  it  was 
in  no  other."7  Sheldon  declares  that  the  words  of  Jesus  were 
"certainly  quite  foreign  to  the  ordinary  dialect  of  the  Jewish 
child  and  indicated  the  dawning  of  a  peculiar  sense  of  intimacy 
with  the  Father  in  heaven."  8  The  same  ideas  are  emphatically 
upheld  by  Nosgen.9  The  exceptional  character  of  the  saying  is 
pointed  out  by  Reville,10  and  by  Monnier.11  Both  Nebe12  and 
Bovon,13  while  denying  the  word  "Father,"  in  the  Boy  Christ's 
reply,  expresses  the  same  signification  that  it  had  for  Him  after- 
ward, yet  affirm  that  it  expresses  a  very  special  relation  to  God. 
Something  unique,  but  only  in  a  religious  way,  is  likewise  seen  in 

1  Plan  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity,  261  note. 

2  The  Perfecting  of  J.,  AndR  XVII  (1892),  342.  This  writer  holds  that  the  Boy 
Jesus  had  not  yet  "the  knowledge  that  His  consciousness  of  God  was  peculiar  to 
Himself  .  .  .  not  yet  the  thought  of  His  sinlessness"  (Idem,  343).  Both  of  which 
points  are  denied  by  the  following  scholars. 

3  Life  of  J.  prior  to  His  Ministry,  Think  VII  (1895),  398. 

4  Comment,  on  Luke,  93.  Godet's  views  on  our  passage  are  opposed  by  Brown, 
Life  of  J.  prior  to  His  Public  Minist.,  ExpT  VI  (1904-5),  415  ff. 

5  N.  Test.  Th.,  I.  81. 

6  The  Teaching  of  J.,  97. 

7  Jesus  and  the  Gospel,  184. 

8  New  Test.  Theol.,  63. 

9  Geschichte  J.  C,  125. 

10  Affirmation  ingenue  d'  une  relation  de  fils  a  pere  qui  V  unirait  a  Dieu  tres  par- 
ticulierement.    (Jesus  de  Naz.,  410.) 

11 II  se  sent  fils  de  Dieu  de  la  facon  la  plus  immediate  (La  Mission  Historique 
de  J.,  30). 

12  Die  Kindheitsgeschichte  J.  C,  417. 

13  Theol.  duN.  Test.,  I.  236. 


THE  MODERN  VIEWS  43 

the  self-consciousness  of  the  Boy  Christ  by  H.  Schmidt,1  Schlat- 
ter,2 Gelpke,3  Furrer,4  Hess,5  P.  W.  Schmidt,6  Paterson,7  Reuss,8 
Evans,9  Hitchcock,10  Gilbert,11  Garvie.12 

3.   "mere  messianic  consciousness'  ' 

Certain  modern  scholars  claim  that  Jesus'  earliest  recorded 
words  express  Messiahship,  yet  nothing  more  than  Messiahship. 
Some  of  those  deny  the  genuineness  of  the  words,  others  contend 
that  only  the  dawn  or  first  glimpse  of  Messianic  consciousness  is 
expressed,  while  others  claim  that  full  assurance  of  Messiahship 
is  expressed. 

Certain  modern  scholars,  while  denying  the  genuineness  of 
Luke  ii.  49,  yet  state  that  the  text  itself  as  it  stands  expresses 
Messiahship.  This  is  the  view  of  Paulus,13  Strauss,14  Bruno 
Bauer,15  and  Loisy.16 

1  Bildung  und  Gehalt  des  messianischen  Bewusstseins  Jesu,  StKr  LXII  (1889), 
429,  430. 

2  Theol.  des  n.  Test.,  I.  483. 

3  Die  Jugendgesch.  des  Herrn,  90. 

4  Das  Leben  J.  C,  51-58. 

5  Jesus  von  Nazareth,  4-9. 

6  Geschichte  Jesu,  52-56. 

7  Jesus  Christ,  HDB  (sing.  vol.  446). 

8  Histoire  Evangelique,  159. 

9  Self-consciousness  of  J.,  AndthSB  II  (1891)  18. 

10  Psychology  of  J.,  102.  Cf.  Self-consciousness  of  J.,  OT-NTSt  XIII  (1891)  272. 

11  Student's  Life  of  J.,  124-5. 

12  Studies  in  the  inner  Life  of  J.,  110-114.  Cf.  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  76. 
This  writer  confesses  he  is  not  able  to  tell  when  the  consciousness  of  Sonship  and 
Messiahship  came  to  Jesus,  but  thinks  they  came  gradually  in  correspondence  with 
His  development  (op  cit.  126,  309).  Godet  writes  concerning  the  Boy  Christ  that, 
"even  now  in  a  distance,  a  mission  dawns  before  His  gaze"  (Life  of  J.  prior  to  His 
Ministry,  Think  VII  (1895)  398).  Monnier  (loc.  cit.)  states  that  the  Messianic 
consciousness  came  after  the  twelfth  year,  not  stating  when.  The  coming  of  this 
consciousness  is  placed  after  the  baptism  by  P.  W.  Schmidt  (Jesus  in  modern 
criticism,  38-39).  With  these  exceptions  the  scholars  given  in  this  section  date  the 
birth  of  the  Messianic  consciousness  at  the  baptism.  Gore  (Dissertation  on  Sub- 
jects Connected  with  the  Incarnation,  78  and  note)  is  to  be  classed  here,  but  he 
expresses  his  view  in  a  doubtful  way. 

13  Das  Leben  J.,  I.  18,  Exegetesches  Handbuch  . . . ,  280.  He  doubts  the  his- 
toricity, 282. 

"  Life  of  J.,  195. 

16  Kritik  der  Evang.,  I.  293. 

16  Les  Evang.  Synopt.,  I.  183.  J.  Hacker  says  he  finds  in  the  Temple  episode 
"nichts  andres  als  eine  Verherrlichung  des  Messiaskindes"  (Die  Jungfrauen 
Geburt  und  das  n.  Test.  ZwTh  XLIX  (1906)  56),  thus  implying  a  denial  of  the 
genuineness. 


44     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Other  scholars  attribute  to  the  twelve-year-old  Jesus  the  be- 
ginning of  Messianic  consciousness.     For  instance,   Edersheim 
characterizes  the  state  of  mind  of  the  twelve-year-old  Boy  "the 
awakening  of  the  Christ  consciousness  .  .  .  partial,  and  perhaps 
even  temporary."  1     After  seeing  in  Luke  ii.  49,  "the  breaking 
forth  of  the  consciousness  of  Divine  Sonship"  Meyer  adds  in  a 
note,  "at  all  events  already  in  Messianic  presentiment,  yet  not 
with  the  conception  fully  unfolded.' ' 2     The  passage  is  called  by 
Ramsay  "a  remarkable  instance  of  the  young  Boy's  awakening 
consciousness  of  His  own  mission."  3    While  de  Pressense  writes 
that  during  this  visit  of  Jesus  to  the  Temple  He  "perhaps  for  the 
first  time  became  fully  conscious  of  the  greatness  of  His  mission," 
yet  in  the  next  breath  he  calls  it  a  "great  moment  in  the  develop- 
ment of  Jesus,  by  revealing  Him  to  Himself."  4     A.  T.  Robertson, 
referring  to  Christ's  saying  "as  the  keyword  to  His  after  life  and 
teaching"  and  as  expressing  a  most  special  relation  with  God,  yet 
attributes  to  the  Boy  Jesus  a  "dawning  Messianic  consciousness."  5 
E.  F.  Scott  uses  the  words  "awakened"  and  "henceforth"  and 
this,  after  referring  to  the  importance  of  Luke  ii.  49,  for  the 
question  of  the  development  of  Christ's   Messianic   conscious- 
ness.6 

Certain  scholars  hold  that  Christ  in  His  first  words  manifested 
full  Messianic  consciousness.  For  instance  Briggs  writes:  "Jesus 
here  at  the  age  of  twelve  years,  makes  it  known  to  His  parents 
that  He  is  assured  of  His  Messianic  calling."  7  From  the  Temple 
episode,  Thomson  infers  that  "Jesus  was  already  aware  of  His 
mission  and  consciously  preparing  for  it."  8  A  "strongly  devel- 
oped Messianic  consciousness"  is  the  view  of  Baljon.9  Wallis 
mentions  "the  dawning  consciousness  of  the  youthful  Messiah"  10 

1  Life  and  Times  of  J.,  I.  249. 

2  Comment,  on  New  Test.,  I.  345. 

3  Was  Christ  bom  in  Beth.?  80. 
«  Jesus  Christ,  208. 

6  Keywords  in  the  Teaching  of  J.,  13,  The  Teaching  of  J.  concerning  God  the 
Father,  47,  Epochs  in  the  Life  of  J.,  6-8,  Luke  the  historian,  158. 

6  Father's  House,  HDG  I.  583. 

7  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  234. 

8  Art.' Jesus  Christ  in  SDB  I.  164.  This  writer  also  holds  that  Christ's  "con- 
sciousness of  His  Divine  nature  and  power  grew  and  ripened  and  strengthened 
until  the  time  of  His  showing  unto  Israel." 

9  Commentaar  . . .  Lukas,  72. 

10  About  My  Father's  business,  Exp.  2d  ser.  vol.  VIII.  23. 


THE  MODERN  VIEWS  45 

and  the  deepening  of  "His  assured  sense  of  His  Heavenly  Father's 
mission."  x  A  view  peculiar  to  himself  is  Malan's :  that  the  words 
of  the  Boy  Jesus  indicate  the  realization  that  His  Father's  Will  is 
His.2 

4.   "real  divine  sonship" 

There  are  modern  scholars  who  interpret  from  Jesus'  first 
words  that  there  is  expressed  the  dawning  or  beginning  of 
consciousness  of  a  real  Divine  Sonship.  This  Divine  Son- 
ship  is  variously  viewed  and  is  frequently  diverse  from  ortho- 
doxy. 

The  dawning  consciousness  of  real  Divine  Sonship  is  the  view 
of  Olshausen,  who  says  that  the  event  in  the  Temple  was  the 
moment  when  Christ  "became  aware  of  His  exalted  Divine 
nature,"3  that  there  His  mental  development  ripened  "into  the 
clear  knowledge  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  God  was 
His  Father."  4  Oosterzee  calls  Christ's  saying  the  "expression 
of  direct  and  infallible  self-consciousness,  now  gradually  develop- 
ing into  higher  knowledge,"  5  and  Lange,  after  saying  it  expressed 
the  whole  idea  of  His  nature,  predicates  of  it  "the  dawning  feeling 
of  that  Sonship  which  was  His  alone."  6  Hartmann  declares 
that  Christ  "in  holy  presentiment  expressed  His  oneness  with  the 
heavenly  Father."  7  In  the  first  words  of  Jesus,  -MacDermott 
finds  "the  dawning  consciousness  of  His  unique  relation  to  God,"  8 
and  Plumptre  finds  "a  germ  that  there  comes  out  so  fully  in  such 
words  as  'My  Father  worketh  hitherto  and  I  also  work,'  T  and  the 
Father  are  one.'  "  9  That  it  was  in  the  Temple  that  His  Divine 
nature    first    dawned    on   Him    is  held  by   Davis,10    Paynter,11 

1  Id.,  24. 

2 "  Un  rapport  direct  du  principe  m&me  de  sa  libre  volonte  avec  la  volonte  de 
Dieu  comme  de  son  Pere."  L'Av6nement,  dans  Jesus  Enfant  de  la  Conscience 
religieuse,  RThQr  V  (1896)  282. 

3  Bible  Comment,  on  Gosp.,  I.  149. 

*  Id.,  150. 

5  Comment,  on  St.  Luke,  51. 

6  Life  of  C,  324. 

7  Das  Leben  J.,  68. 

8  Gospel  accord,  to  St.  Luke,  23. 

9  St.  Luke,  Ellicott's  Comment.,  I.  258-9. 

10  The  Story  of  the  Naz.,  60.  t 

n  The  Holy  Life,  123. 


46     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Geikie,1  Keil.2  Stier  holds  the  view  that  from  the  very  beginning 
Christ  possessed  a  consciousness  of  the  object  of  His  life,  but  as  to  the 
knowledge  of  His  nature,  Mary's  question  was  responsible  for  its 
origin.  "This  great  truth  rises  before  Him  out  of  Joseph's  name  of 
father,  that  His  own  true  Father  is  He  whom  no  one  in  Israel  had 
ever  addressed  by  that  name,  and  Himself  never  till  now." 3  Some- 
what similar  is  the  view  of  Steinmeyer.4  Reubelt  holds  that 
Jesus  at  twelve  "had  already  some  idea  that  God  was  in  a  peculiar 
manner  His  Father,"  only  later  He  acquired  "full  knowledge  of 
this."  5  Stanley  Hall  mentions  that  the  Boy  Christ  "was  already 
on  the  way  to  a  sense  of  Divine  Sonship."  6  While  holding  that 
Christ  was  destined  for  His  mission  "from  the  first  conceivable 
moment  of  His  earthly  existence,"  Ewald  states  that  Luke  ii.  49 
allows  us  to  take  a  glance  "into  an  opening  life  of  an  infinite  and 
most  exalted  nature."  7  The  opinion  of  Nolloth  is  that  "the 
consciousness  of  the  nature  of  His  Person  and  of  His  mission  was 
already  awakened."  8  Such  is  the  view  also  of  Foxell.9  Ebrard 10 
and  Brough  u  contend  that  in  the  Temple  Jesus  first  recognized 
His  own  nature  and  His  personal  relation  with  God,  but  He  was 
not  yet  conscious  of  His  mission  or  Messiahship.  A  similar  view 
is  expressed  by  Sweet,12  Frederich,13  Mackintosh,14  and  Robin- 
son.15 

In  the  midst  of  a  diversity  and  confusion  of  opinions,  the  view 

I  The  Life  and  Words  of  C,  228.  Adamson  seems  to  hold  a  view  on  the  same 
lines  as  these  scholars  (Studies  in  the  Mind  of  J.,  154-155;  cf.  also  144).  Hanna 
(The  Early  Years  of  Our  Lord's  Life,  122)  expresses  this  view  in  a  doubtful  way 
using  the  word  "perhaps." 

2  Comment,  liber  . . .  Mk.  u.  Lk.,  244.  Cf.  also  Kiihl,  Das  Selbstbewusstsein 
J.,  BZSF  (1907)  III,  Ser.  N.  II,  p.  43. 

3  Words  of  the  Lord  J.,  23,  25. 

4  Die  Geschichte  der  Geburt  des  Herrn,  167. 

5  Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  385. 

6  Jesus  the  Christ  in  the  Light  of  Psychology,  I.  252,  yet  see  p.  302. 

7  History  of  Israel,  VI.  188.    Cf.  Die  drei  ersten  Evang.,  I.  230-231. 

8  Rise  of  the  Christian  Religion,  183-184;  he  says  Christ  "is  on  the  way  to  know 
Himself."  Cf.  Person  of  our  Lord  and  Recent  Thought,  115-119,  where  he  puts 
Messianic  consciousness  at  the  baptism. 

9  Temptation  of  J.,  34,  103. 
10  Gospel  Hist.,  191. 

II  The  Early  Life  of  Our  Lord,  124-128. 

12  Birth  and  Infancy  of  C,  13,  258,  259. 

13  The  Self-consc.  of  J.,  AndthSB  II  (1891)  2. 

14  The  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  J.,  26,  27,  17,  cf.  481. 
"The  Self-limitation  of  the  Word  of  God,  68-71. 


THE  MODERN  VIEWS  47 

that  the  Boy  Christ  expressed  complete  real  Divine  Sonship, 
is  held  by  not  a  few  non-Catholic  as  well  as  by  Catholic  scholars. 
As  to  the  non-Catholic  scholars,  in  a  general  way  it  may  be 
said  that  the  view  of  conservative  Protestants  concerning  Christ's 
self -consciousness  is  as  follows:  Like  everybody  He  was  born  an 
"unthinking  infant."  As  soon  as  He  reached  the  age  of  reason, 
that  is,  long  before  His  twelfth  year,  He  became  conscious  of  His 
Divine  Sonship,  and  in  the  Temple  He  gave  expression  to  this  con- 
sciousness. The  following  interpret  real  Divine  Sonship  from  the 
text  —  yet  sometimes  not  exactly  in  the  traditional  sense : 
Phelan,1  Sadler,2  Vallings,3  Dorner,4  Alfred,5  Bengel,6  Ellicott,7 
Barnes,8  Clarke,9  Jacobus,10  Owen,11  Foote,12  Goulburn,13  Ryle,14 
van  Doren,15  Besser,16  Hahn,17  Blunt,18  Nevin,19  Beet,20  Doder- 
lein,21  Hall,22  Schaff,23  Riddle,24  Homes,25  Beecher,26  Fleet- 
wood,27   Adeney,28    Farrar,29    Stalker,30    Plummer,31    Maclaren,32 

1  Discourse  II.  on  Lk.  ii.  49,  Remains,  I.  143.     He  holds  that  the  Man  Jesus 
was  united  with  the  Supreme  Intelligence  "from  the  beginning." 

2  Gosp.  according  to  Luke,  68,  69. 

3  The  Divine  Man,  51. 

4  History  of  the  Development  of  Doctrine  of  Person  of  C,  Div.  I.  vol  I.  54. 
For  similar  view  see  Christology,  McClinton  and  Strong,  Enc.  of  Bib.  Theol.  II.  278. 

5  Gr.  Test.,  I.  419. 

6  Gnomon  of  New  Test.,  401. 

7  Hist.  Lectures  on  ...  J.  C,  96-7. 

8  Notes  ...  on  the  Gosp.,  II.  33. 

9  New  Test.,  I.  355. 

10  Comment,  on  Mk.  and  Lk.,  159. 

11  Comment,  on  Lk.,  44. 

12  Lectures  on  Luke,  I.  125. 

13  Gospel  of  the  Childhood,  166  ff. 

14  St.  Luke,  1.81. 

16  Comment,  on  Lk.,  73. 

16  Evang.  St.  Luca,  96. 

17  Evang.  des  Lucas,  I.  234. 

18  Lectures  on  the  Hist,  of  Our  Lord,  45. 

19  Popular  Comment,  on  Lk.,  79. 

20  The  Father's  Business,  Homiletic  Rev.  XXXIV  (1897)  242. 

21  Das  Lern.  d.  Jesusknaben,  NJdTh  I  (1892)  618,  cf.  Think  III  (1893),  173. 

22  The  Kenotic  Theory,  189;  The  Incarnation,  338. 

23  Comment,  on  Lk.,  361,  362. 

24  Gosp.  accord.  St.  Luke,  44. 

26  Jesus  Christ,  Kit.  EB  II.  549. 

26  Life  of  C,  74. 

27  Life  of  C,  60. 

28  St.  Luke,  156. 

29  Life  of  C,  36.    Cf.  Gosp.  St.  Luke,  78. 

30  Christology  of  J.,  101. 

31  Comment,  on  Luke,  77,  78. 

32  Gospel  of  Luke,  39. 


48     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

D'Arcy,1  Sanday,2  Hastings,3  Dalman,4  Box,5   Stewart,6   Nicoll,7 
Du  Bose.8 

Catholic  scholars  of  the  modern  period  unanimously  take  ihe 
position  that,  in  His  first  recorded  words,  Jesus  expressed  the  full 
consciousness  of  His  real  Divine  Sonship.  Among  them  may  be 
mentioned,9  Bisping,10  MacEvilly,11  Veuillott,12  Didon,13  Le 
Camus,14  Gigot,15  Terrien,16  Capicelatro,17  Shanahan,18  Bart- 
mann,19  Pohle-Preuss,20  Brassac,21  Schaefer,22  Mangenot,23 
Les6tre,24  Picard,25  Ward,26  Thiriet,27  Lagrange.28  In  answer  to 
attacks  on  their  view  point,  some  scholars  have  dealt  with  the 
question  at  considerable  length,  as  for  example,  Lepin,29  Fillion,30 
Seitz,31  Felder.32 

1  Consciousness,  HDG  I.  361. 

2  Life  of  C.  in  Light  of  Rec.  Research,  133. 

3  Great  Texts  of  the  Bible,  St.  Luke,  127-129. 

4  Clearly  implies  this  view,  Words  of  J.,  288;  cf.  280-287. 

6  Virgin  Birth,  106-107. 

8  The  Temptation  of  J.,  60,  68. 

7  Incarnate  Saviour,  49. 

8  The  Consciousness  of  J.,  41,  42,  50,  51. 

9  It  is  implied  by  the  thesis  defended  in  many  theological  works,  that  Christ 
from  the  first  moment  of  His  conception  enjoyed  the  infused  knowledge,  v.g. 
Billot,  De  Verbo  Incarnato,  201  ff.  Pesch,  Praelectiones  dogmaticae,  IV.  150  ff. 
Coughlan,  De  Incarnatione,  153  ff.,  etc.  It  is  implied  by  Knabenbauer  (Comment, 
in  Luc.  ad  loc),  146,  Curci  (II.  Nuovo  Test.,  I.  321-322). 

10  Erklarung  d.  Evang.  Mk  u.  Lk.,  206. 

11  Comment,  on  St.  Luke,  70. 

12  La  Vie  de  N.  S.  J.  C,  117,  118. 

13  Jesus  Christ,  90. 

"  La  vie  de  N.  S.  J.  C,  I.  190. 

16  Virgin  Birth  in  St.  Luke,  IthQ  VIII  (1913)  434. 
18  La  Mere  de  Dieu,  I.  177. 

17  La  Vita  di  Gesu  Cristo,  I.  101. 

18  Was  the  Son  of  man  Brusque  to  His  Mother?    Cath.  World  CIV  (1916)  346. 

19  Christus  ein  Gegner  des  Marienkultus?  48-51. 

20  Christology,  261. 

21  Handbook  to  the  New  Test.,  257. 

22  Mother  of  J.  in  Script.,  102,  227. 

23  Les  fivang.  Synopt.,  123-124. 

24  Jesus  Christ,  VDB  III  1444. 

25  La  Transcendance  de  J.  C,  165. 
28  Holy  Gosp.  of  Luke,  35. 

27  L'fivangile  m£dite  avec  les  Peres,  I.  389. 

28  Le  Recit  de  l'Enfrancc,  Rb.  IV  (1895)  181;  La  Conception  surnaturelle  du  C. 
Rb  (1914)  201;  fivangile  selon  S.  Luc,  97. 

29  Christ  and  the  Gospel,  122,  250  ff.,  258,  332,  471. 

30  Le  Developpement  intellectuel  et  moral  de  J.  in  RCIFr  for  April  1,  1914, 
15-17;  cf.  fCvang.  selon  S.  Luc,  87. 

81  Das  Evang.  von  Gottessohn,  194-209. 

82  Jesus  Christus,  I.  328-331;  cf.  456-457. 


THE  MODERN  VIEWS  49 

That  in  Christ's  first  expression  of  real  Divine  Sonship,  there 
is  a  reference  to  His  Messiahship,  is  held  by  some  Protestants, 
such  as  Jacobus,  Clarke,  Foote,  van  Doren,  Nicoll,  Holmes, 
Stalker,  Hall,  D.  Smith; x  while  Catholic  scholars  of  this  period,  in 
harmony  with  those  of  the  preceding  one,  understand  that  the  Boy 
Christ  referred  to  the  mission  He  received  from  His  Father,  such 
as  MacEvilly,  Didon,  Brassac,2  LeCamus,  Bartman,  Lepin,  Felder. 

A  brief  outline  of  the  history  of  the  exegesis  of  Luke  ii.  49, 
which  at  the  same  time  gives  us  the  status  questionis,  is  as  follows : 

The  early  Church  saw  in  Jesus'  first  recorded  words  an  expres- 
sion of  real  Divine  Sonship.  This  interpretation  was  supported 
throughout  the  centuries,  and  is  upheld  by  certain  conservative 
Protestant  as  well  as  Catholic  scholars  of  the  present  day. 

In  modern  times  there  have  sprung  up  five  other  views;  —  the 
beginning  of  real  Divine  Sonship,  a  mere  Messianic  consciousness, 
the  dawn  of  Messianic  consciousness,  a  special  ethical  Sonship,  an 
ordinary  Israelitic  consciousness.  With  the  exception  of  the  last 
mentioned,  which  would  be  implied  by  certain  early  heretical 
opinions,  these  modern  views  have  no  precedents  or  parallels  in 
previous  history. 

1  The  Days  of|His  Flesh,  23. 

2  Handbook'of  .N.  T.  257. 


SECTION  III 
PRELIMINARY  QUESTIONS 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  CORRECT  TEXT  OF  LUKE  ii.  49 

In  endeavoring  to  find  out  which  is  the  Greek  text  representing, 
as  far  as  we  know,  the  original,  we  shall  examine  all  the  variations 
in  detail.  Our  authority,  unless  otherwise  indicated,  is  Tischen- 
dorf,  Novum  Testamentum,  editio  octava  major,  II.  438-439. 

1.  (a)  Syr.  sch.  and  cu.  omitt  Kal. 

(6)  Instead  of  Kal  elxev  the  codices  13,  49,  346  read  elxe  %k. 
13  and  346  belong  to  the  Ferrar  group;  but  here  D,  which  is  gen- 
erally in  harmony  with  them,  has  the  common  reading  Kal  etiuev 
which  it  is  clear  is  to  be  preferred. 

2.  (a)  For  oti  59  has  etc,  which,  being  alone,  must  be  regarded 
as  a  mistake  of  the  copyist. 

(6)  For  «d  ori,  A  (Greek)  has  x!  ore  (it  is  followed  by  ^tqteits 
whose  e  was  confused  (ori  s)  into  the  preceding  word),  but  it  is 
corrected  in  its  Latin  interlinear  text  5  which  has:  quid  est  quod. 
Childhood  Gospel  of  Thomas x  has  simply  tl.  These  are  the 
only  exceptions,  and  it  is  clear  that  the  correct  reading  is  t£  8tl 

3.  Concerning  the  next  word  matters  are  not  so  easy. 

(a)  We  find  the  imperfect  verb  ItJQtww  in  Kc  ABCDLXrAn 
unc.  (five)  it  (nearly  all)2  vg.  syr(utr)  arm  aeth  go  Origen,3  Didy- 
mus,4  Epiphanius,5  Cyril  of  Alexandria,6  etc. 

(b)  However  the  present  ^qtsTts  is  read  in  K*  346  b7  cop  syrcu- 
also  in  the  Childhood  Gospel  of  Thomas8  and  St.  Leo.9 

1  Cf.  fivang.  Apocryph.  (edit.  Michel),  I.  188. 

2  Cf.  Sabatier,  Bib.  Sac.,  III.  2,  p.  272. 

3  Twice  in  Homil.,  XX.  in  Luc,  M.PG  XIII.  185. 

4  De  Trinit.,  III.  20,  M.PG  XXXIX.  896. 

6  Two  different  times,  Adv.  Haer.,  I.  ii.  30.  Her.  50,  M.PG  XLI.  456;  Id.  II.  ii, 
Her.,  66,  M.PG  XLII.  93. 

6  Twice  in  his  Comment.,  M.PG  LXXII.  509,  also  in  De  Recta  Fide,  M.PG 
LXXVI.  1520. 

7  Cod.  Veronensis,  Oxford  1911,  ad  loc. 

8  Cf.  fivang.  Apocryph.  (edit.  Michel),  I.  188. 
8  Ep.  XVI.  2,  M.PL  LIV.  697. 

53 


54     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Mentioning  that  Westcott-Hort  has  done  the  same,  Power 
adopts  the  present  ^tqtscts,  as  well  as  the  present  tense,  in  the 
preceding  verse,  48,  ^tjtoOjuv.  We  give  his  argument  in  detail. 
"In  making  the  change  Westcott  and  Hort,  while  fully  alive  to  the 
strength  of  the  opposition  represented  by  the  Cod.  A  C  D,  the 
Vulgate,  Tischendorf  and  the  English  Versions  of  1611  and  1881, 
have  been  content  to  abide  by  the  reading  of  N  (prima  manu)  and 
B.  The  truth  is  that  the  imperfects  cannot  be  defended  except  by 
those  who  have  overlooked  the  force  of  the  present  and  imperfect 
'continuous'  in  Greek."  1 

Power  then  points  out  that  X£yw  can  have  three  differently 
shaded  time-concepts,  "I  speak,"  "I  am  speaking,"  "I  have  been 
speaking."  He  contends  that  this  last  has  been  lost  sight  of;  and 
he  goes  on  to  say :  "  It  becomes  easy  to  understand  how  some 
early  copyists  rejected  the  present  ^QToupev  in  Luke  ii.  48  and 
substituted  the  imperfect  ifycoGptv.  All  they  say  in  the 
^Tou^ev,  now  happily  restored  by  Westcott  and  Hort,  was  'we 
seek/  and  how  could  Mary  say,  'Son  we  seek  thee'  when  she  had 
met  Him  in  the  Temple?  Thus  the  imperfect  'we  were  seeking 
thee'  was  dragged  in,  to  the  loss  of  the  pathos  of  the  phrase  that 
represents  the  pained  greeting  of  the  Mother,  'Son  sorrowing  we 
have  been  seeking  Thee  (^tqtou^£v).  How  the  Child  took  up  the 
phrase  and  turned  it  into  a  kind  of  verbal  interjection,  'seeking,' 
has  been  emphasized  before,  when  the  English  construction  was 
said  to  be  far  more  lifelike  than  the  roundabout  and  inert  substi- 
tution for  inverted  commas,  8ti  ^tqtoujxsv."  2 

To  this  argument  we  answer  as  follows:  (1)  It  is  certainly  too 
much  to  suppose  the  copyists  of  the  Greek  Codices  did  not  know 
the  value  of  the  Greek  present;  it  is  also  too  much  to  suppose  this 
ignorance  on  the  part  of  all  the  Greek  Fathers,  who  are  unanimous 
in  using  the  imperfect.  (2)  Power  makes  a  mistake.  Neither  B 
nor  W-H  give  the  present  ^yjtsIts  in  verse  49.  They  both  have  the 
present  ^tou^sv  in  the  previous  verse,  48.  In  regard  to  this 
verse  48,  for  the  imperfect  ^tqtou[jl£v  there  are  Nc  AC  DL  XT  A  An 
unc3  al  fere  omnia  itomn  vg  syromn  etc.,  etc.,  and  for  the  present 
^t)toO(jl£v  there  are  K*  B  6pevid.    So  that  for  verse  48,  B  has  the 

1  "Whojwere  they,  etc.,"  IThQ  VII  (1912)  444-451. 

2  Id.,  pp.  450-451. 


THE  CORRECT  TEXT  OF  LUKE  ii.  49     55 

present,  and  W-H  on  account  of  their  cult  of  this  Codex  adopted 
this  reading.  But  in  spite  of  having  the  present  in  verse  48,  both 
B  and  W-H  retain  the  imperfect  in  verse  49,  which  fact  is  a  strong 
point  in  favor  of  the  imperfect  in  the  latter  verse. 

(3)  Comparing  the  two  verses  48  and  49  in  regard  to  the  verb 
"seek":  If  originally  there  were  different  tenses,  the  present  in 
one  and  the  imperfect  in  the  other,  there  is  more  authority  for  the 
present  in  verse  48,  for  B  has  the  present  here  and  the  imperfect 
in  49,  —  which  is  the  stand  taken  by  W-H,  Nestle,  andB.  Weiss; 
on  the  other  hand,  if  the  verbs  in  both  verses  had  originally  the 
same  tense  —  the  only  authority  for  the  present  in  both  verses  is 
N  (prima  manu)  which  makes,  it  highly  probable  that  the  imper- 
fect was  in  both  verses.  (4)  It  is  also  suggested  from  the  meaning 
that  the  verb  "seek"  in  49  had  originally  the  same  tense  as  the 
verb  "know"  in  the  second  half  of  the  verse.  Now  it  is  fairly 
certain,  and  Power  here  agrees  with  us,  that  the  imperfect  J  8 site 
is  to  be  preferred. 

(5)  All  that  Power's  whole  argument  amounts  to  is  that  the 
present  tense  would  not  be  incongruous;  he  does  not,  cannot 
claim  that  the  imperfect  continuous  is  incongruous.  So  that  the 
matter  is  to  be  settled  on  the  question  of  the  authorities.  For  the 
present  tense  there  are  prima  manu  Sinaiticus  (n),  only  one  of 
the  Ferrar  group  (346),  one  syr.  (cur.),  and  only  one  Old  Latin  (b). 
The  rest  of  these  groups  are  in  unison  in  giving  the  imperfect, 
and  this  along  with  D  and  ABCLXTAII  and  all  the  Fathers  except 
a  solitary  Latin  one,  St.  Leo.  The  evidence  is  clearly  in  favor  of 
the  imperfect,  the  one  exception  in  each  of  the  aforesaid  groups 
being  explicable  by  error  of  the  copyist. 

4.  Instead  of  ^Ssits  (imperfect)  we  find  the  present  of  dart  in 
D  225,282  49ev  abceffiMq  syrcu. 

The  remarkable  and  much  discussed  fact  is  found  here  again, 
viz.,  that  here  as  in  so  many  other  points  D,  the  Old  Latin  and 
syr^J  agree  against  the  common  reading.  But  it  is  to  be  noted 
that  syrutr  and  the  Ferrar  group  are,  here  with  the  consensus  of 
authorities,  for  the  imperfect,  which  fact  lends  great  weight  to 
the  view  that  the  imperfect  is  the  correct  reading. 

The  Fathers  are  arranged  on  both  sides. 

(a)  The  following  give  the  present  tense:  Childhood  Gospel  of 


56     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Thomas,1  Marcosians  in  Irenaeus,2  Origen,3  Cyril  of  Alexandria,4 
Theodoret,5  Tertullian,6  Juvencus,7  Ambrose,8  Gratiani.9 

(6)  The  imperfect  is  found  in  Origen,10  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,11 
Didymus,12  Epiphanius,13  Cyril  of  Alexandria,14  Dialogus  contra 
Maced,15  Theodoret,16  Photius,17  Augustine,18  Leo,19  Victor,20 
Simeon  Metaphrastes,21  Greek  catena  (edit.  Cramer).22  It  is  a 
curious  thing  that  Titus  of  Bostra  insists  that  not  the  plural  but 
the  singular  (olSaq)  was  used.  This  disagreement  of  the  Fathers 
may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  they  frequently  quoted  from 
memory.  Thus  we  find  Origen  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria  using 
both  tenses.  Hence  this  disagreement  of  the  Fathers  does  not 
impair  our  reason  given  above  for  preferring  the  imperfect,  jj&ttTe. 

5.  In  regard  to  the  expression  iv  iolq,  there  are  no  variants  in 
the  Greek  Manuscripts,  but  we  find  some  in  the  versions  and 
Fathers. 

For  iv  toT<;  tou  Uazpiq  jjlou, 

(a)  The  Curetonian  Syriac  has  "in  the  Father's  house";23 

1  fivang.  Apocryph.  (edit.  Michel),  188. 

2  Both  Greek  and  Latin  Adv.  Haer.,  I.  20,  2,  M.PG  VII.  653. 

3  Homil.  XVII.  in  Luc,  M.PG  XIII.  1849. 

4  De  Rocta  Fide,  loc.  cit.,  M.PG  LXXVI.  1517. 
«De  Incarnat.,  M.PG  LXXIV.  73. 

6  Adv.  Prax.,  XXVI.,  M.PL  II.  189. 

7Gosp.  Harm.  ad.  loc.,  Corp.  Script.  Lat.,  XXIV.  18  (edit.  Huemer). 

8  Comment,  ad.  loc,  Corp.  Script.  Lat.,  XXXII.  p.  75  (edit.  Schenkel). 

9  Accord,  to  Sabatier,  III.  2,  272. 

10  Origen  has  the  imperfect  in  Homil.,  XXI.  M.PG  XIII.  1851. 

11  Catech.,  VII.  De  Patre,  VI.  M.PG  XXXIII.  612. 

12  De  Trinit,  III.  20,  M.PG  XXXIX.  896. 

13  Three  times.  Adv.  Haer.,  II.  i.  Haer.  30  and  51,  M.PG  XLI.  456,  and  925, 
and  Adv.  Haer.,  II.  ii.  Haer.,  66,  M.PG  XLII.  93. 

14  Three  times:  once  in  De  Recta  Fide,  M.PG  LXXVI.  1517,  and  twice  in  his 
Comment,  in  Luc  ad  loc,  M.PG  LXXII.  509. 

"Nbr.,  486,  M.PG  XXVIII.  324. 

16  Cited  by  Tischendorf  as  5,  1063,  but  which  I  could  not  verify. 
"Twice:    Ad  Amphil.,  CLVIIL,  M.PG  CI.  832:  and  Contr.  Manac,  IV.  16, 
M.PG  CII.B  213. 

18  Augustine  uses  the  imperfect  several  times  in  Homil.,  LI.  in  Concord.  Evang., 
M.PL  XXXVIII.  342  ff.  He  also  uses  it  in  De  Nuptiis  et  Concup.,  Corp.  Script., 
Lat.  XLII.  225  (edit.  Vrba  &  Zycha). 

19  Epist.,  XVI.,  M.PL  LIV.  697. 

20  Evangel.  Harm.  Interp.,  XII,  M.PL  LXVIII.  262. 

21  Vitae  Sanctorum  . . .,  M.PG  CXV.  548. 

22  Catenae  Graecae,  27. 

23  F.   C.   Burkitt,   Evangelion  da  Mepharreshe,   I.,   Cambridge   1904,   258-9, 
"Abba"  here  and  often  in  this  version  is  used  for  "My  Father,"  cf.  Burkitt's 

Work,  II.  47. 


THE  CORRECT  TEXT  OF  LUKE  ii.  49     57 

the  Peshitto:  "in  the  house  of  My  Father";1  the  Sinaitic 
Syriac:  "in  the  house  of  My  Father";2  the  Armenian:  "in 
the  house  of  My  Father";3  the  Persian:  "in  domo  patris";4 
the  Arabic  Gosp.  of  the  Infancy:   "in  My  Father's  house."  5 

(b)  The  Coptic  (Boharic)  has  "in  the  things  of  My  Father"; 6 
the  Coptic  (Sahidic):  "in  the  (things)  of  My  Father";  7  the 
Aethiopic:  "in  his  quae  (sunt)  Patris  Mei";8  the  Arabic:  "in 
iis  quae  Patris  mei";9  the  Old  Latin:  "in  his  quae  Patris 
mei";10  except  Veronensis  (b)  u  which  has  "in  propria  Patris 
mei,"  and  both  Vercellensis  (a)12  and  Rehdegeranus  (l)13  which 
have  "in  Patris  mei";  the  Vulgate:  "in  his  quae  Patris 
mei."  14 

Concerning  the  Fathers,  they  are  classified  elsewhere15  when  we 
dealt  at  length  with  the  question  as  to  what  is  to  be  understood 
by  this  expression  h  toiq  tou.  It  can  be  readily  seen  that  the 
versions  are  not  at  all  at  one  in  their  renderings  of  the  ex- 
pression. They  already  raised  the  question  as  to  what  is  to  be 
understood. 

6.  Instead  of  elvat  jas  we  find  the  transposition,  pe  elvai  in  D 
i,  13,  69, 118,  6^  it  vg. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  D  and  the  numbers  of  the  Ferrar  group, 
13,  69,  and  the  Old  Latin  are  here  again  in  agreement  against  the 
general  consensus  of  texts  which  have  slvaf  jus. 

Here,  too,  the  Fathers  are  naturally  on  both  sides. 

1  Tetraevangelium  sanctum  juxta,  simpl.  Syr.  Vers.  edit.  P.  E.  Pusey,  Oxonii 
1891,  330. 

2  The  Four  Gosp.  in  Syriac  transcribed  from  the  Sinaitic  Palimpsest,  Cam- 
bridge, 1894. 

3  Waltoni  Bibl.  Polyglotta,  V.  258. 
*  Id. 

6  Codex  Apocryphus  (edit.  Thilo),  128. 

6  The  Coptic  Version  of  New  Test,  in  the  North.  Dial.,  II.  (edit,  from  MS. 
Huntington,  17,  Oxford  (1898),  32-33. 

7  The  Coptic  Vers,  of  New  Test,  in  South  Dial.,  II.,  Oxford  (1911),  44-45. 

8  Transl.  in  Waltoni  Bibl.  Polyglotta,  V.  259. 

9  Transl.  in  same,  V.  259. 

10  In  Sabatier,  Bib.  Sac.  III.,  2,  p.  272. 

11  Edit.  Oxford,  1911. 

12  Edit.  Gasquet,  Rome,  1914. 

13  Edit.  Vogels,  Rome,  1913. 

14  Novum  Testamentum  D.  N.  J.  C.  latine  secundum  edit.  Hieron.  (edit.  J. 
Wordsworth,  Oxonii,  1899-1908). 

15  In  the  IthQ  for  1922,  April  and  July. 


58     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

(a)  For  [is  elvat,  there  are,  Marcosians  in  Irenaeus,1  Origen,2 
Didymus,3  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,4  Epiphanius,5  Theodoret,6  Dia- 
logus  contra  Maced.7 

(b)  And  for  ehai  jie  we  have  the  Childhood  Gospel  of  Thomas,8 
Epiphanius,9  Cyril  of  Alexandria,10  Theordoret,11  Photius,12 
Simeon  Metaphrastes,13  Greek  Catena.14 

The  Fathers  quoted  freely,15  a  practice  which  renders  a  mistake 
easy.  The  bulk  of  the  texts  put  the  fie  last,  which  makes  it  clear 
that  this  is  the  correct  reading.  This  point  may  seem  an  unim- 
portant matter,  yet  if  jue  is  last,  it  is  emphasized,  and  this  is,  as 
we  shall  see,  of  some  importance. 

Summing  up  the  matter  of  the  text,  the  only  serious  difficulty 
is  the  question  of  the  tense  of  the  two  verbs,  "to  seek"  and  "to 
know."  In  regard  to  these  we  have  shown  that  it  is  most  probable 
that  the  imperfect  represents  the  original.  At  any  rate  there  is 
nothing  of  great  consequence  involved.  Whether  the  present  or 
the  imperfect  was  used  will  not  seriously  affect  anything  we  have 
to  say. 

The  resultant  text  as  we  take  it  (in  agreement  with  Westcott- 
Hort,  Tischendorf,  Nestle,  von  Sodon,  Vogels,  etc.)  is:  Kal  sItusv 
iup&<;  auTOtj^*  t(  oti  ^tqtscts  ^e;  oux  fi&siTS  8ti  £v  to!<;  tou  IIaTp6<; 

1  Both  Greek  and  Latin  Adv.  Haer.,  I.  20,  2,  M.PG  VII.  653. 

2  Homil.,  XX.  in  Luc.,  M.PG  XIII.  1852.  Yet  the  other  reading  is  found  in 
another  place,  M.PG  XVII.  324. 

3  De  Trinit.,  III.  20,  M.PG  XXXIX.  896. 

4  Catech.,  VII,  M.PG  XXXIII.  612. 

6  Twice  Adv.  Haer.,  I.  ii.,  Haer.,  51,  M.PG  XLI.  925  and  Adv.  Haer.,  II.  ii. 
Haer.,  66,  M.PG  XLII.  93. 

6  5,  1063,  according  to  Tischendorf,  Oct.  Maj.  ad  loc. 

7  486,  M.PG  XXVIII.  1324. 

8  fivang.  Apocr.  (edit.  Michel),  188. 

9  He  quotes  twice  the  other  way  and  once  this  way.  Adv.  Haer.,  I.  ii.,  Haer., 
30,  M.PG  XLI.  456. 

10  De  Recta  Fide,  M.PG  LXXVI.  1317.  Also  Comment,  ad  loc,  M.PG  LXXII. 
509. 

»  De  Incarnatione,  M.PG  LXXXIV.  73.    Cf.  M.PG  LXXV.  1462. 

12  Twice,  Contra  Manac,  IV.  16,  M.PG  CII.B.  213,  also  Ad.  Amphil.,  CLVIIL, 
M.PG  CI.  832. 

13  Vitae  Sanctorum,  M.PG  CXV.  548. 
M  Edit.  Cramer,  27. 

18  Thus  in  one  place  in  the  Latin  translation  of  Origen  we  find,  "in  his  quae 
sunt  Patris  mei  me  esse  oportet"  (Homil.  XXI.  in  Luc,  M.PG  XIII.  1852).  Ter- 
tullian  writes,  "in  Patris  mei  me  esse  oportet"  (Adv.  Prax.  XXVI.  M.PL  II.  189). 
Besides  quoting  correctly  Augustine  gives,  "in  his  oportet  me  esse  quae  Patris  mei 
sunt"  (Homil,  LI.  De  Concord.  Evang.  X.  M.PL  XXXVIII.  343). 


THE  CORRECT  TEXT  OF  LUKE  ii.  49     59 

(aou  SsT  elvaf  (xe;  A  literal  translation  would  read  thus:  "And 
He  said  unto  them:  Why1  did  you  seek  me?  Did  you  not  know2 
that  in  the  (things)  of  My  Father  I  must  be?" 

1  Tl  5ti  is  for  tL  ykyopev  on  as  in  John  xiv.  22.  It  means  "why."  Cf.  Robert- 
son, Grammar  of  New  Test.  Greek,  739.  Power,  Who  were  they  .  .  .?  Ithq  VII 
(1912)  278-279. 

2 Or  "were  ye  not  aware"  (all  the  time).  The  present  "wist  ye  not"  of  the 
Authorized  and  Revised  must  be  sacrificed.  Cf.  Power,  op.  cit.  IthQ  VII  (1912) 
451. 


CHAPTER  VII 
HISTORICAL  TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF  LUKE  ii.  49 

1.  luke's  eably  chapters  as  a  whole 

The  first  recorded  saying  of  Jesus,  spoken  when  a  boy  of  twelve 
years,  is  found  only  in  the  Third  Gospel.  The  bulk  of  scholars 
date  this  writing  somewhere  between  58  and  90  a.d.1  and  nearly 
all  scholars  are  agreed  that  the  author  is  Luke  the  Physician,  the 
companion  of  St.  Paul.2  There  is,  however,  not  the  same  con- 
sensus of  opinion  touching  the  range  of  its  historical  accuracy. 
Even  a  scholar  like  Harnack  charges  St.  Luke  with  "carelessness,"3 
but  he  is  sharply  taken  to  task  by  Ramsay  and  others;4  and 
among  a  wide  range  of  scholars  the  highest  claims  are  made  for 
St.  Luke  as  a  historian.  Plummer  even  maintains,  "that  Luke 
is  at  variance  with  other  historians  has  yet  to  be  proven;  and  the 
merit  of  the  greater  accuracy  may  still  be  with  him,  even  if  such 
variance  exists."  5  The  physician  and  companion  of  St.  Paul  was 
a  most  appropriate  person  for  a  historian,  as  his  education  and 
profession,  his  literary  ability,  and  his  facilities  for  investigation, 
are  happy  combinations  and  strong  guarantees  for  historical 
trustworthiness.  In  his  classic  introduction  to  the  Gospel,  he  lays 
claim  to  painstaking  research,  and  he  assures  the  reader  that  he  has 
written  accurately  and  chronologically  to  the  end  that  "thou 

1  For  the  different  dates  assigned  by  writers,  see  Jacquier:  Hist,  des  livres  du 
N.  Test.  II.  491.    Conservative  writers  generally  place  the  date  between  60-70  a.d. 

2  Col.  iv.  14;  Philem.  24.  The  authenticity  of  the  Third  Gospel  is  denied  or 
doubted  by  H.  Holtzmann,  Jiilicher,  Schmiedel,  Pfleiderer  and  Loisy.  These 
writers  contend  that  an  unknown  gentile  Christian  (who  made  use  of  the  memoirs 
of  Luke)  was  the  final  editor  or  redactor  of  the  Acts  and  the  Third  Gospel.  How- 
ever, this  view  is  generally  losing  ground,  especially  since  the  vindication  by  Har- 
nack of  the  Lucan  authorship  of  both  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  (Luke  the  Physician, 
especially  121-145). 

8  Luke  the  Physician,  112. 

4  Ramsay's  work,  Luke  the  Physician,  is  a  criticism  of  Harnack.  Likewise  is 
MacRory's;  Professor  Harnack  and  St.  Luke's  historical  authority,  IthQ.  II  (1907) 
223  ff.    Cf.  Robertson,  Luke  the  historian,  29-41. 

6  Comment,  on  Luke,  6. 

60 


TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF  LUKE  ii.  49  61 

mayest  know  the  verity  of  those  words  in  which  thou  hast  been 
instructed."  s 

It  is  in  the  Infancy  section  of  the  Third  Gospel  that  the  Tem- 
ple episode  is  given.  Since  this  section  treats  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
and  the  miraculous  attending  circumstances,  it  does  not  meet  the 
approval  of  those  who  reject  miracles  on  a  priori  principles;  and 
in  fact  this  portion  has  been  the  storm  center  of  attack  on  the 
New  Testament;  most  radical  scholars  brand  the  first  two  chapters 
of  both  Matthew  and  Luke  as  "something  superadded  to  the  main 
body  of  Apostolic  tradition,"  2  and  attach  little  or  no  value  to  them 
historically.3  But  the  fight  has  not  been  all  one-sided.  Since  the 
beginning  of  the  present  century,  the  historicity  of  the  Infancy 
narratives  has  had  an  ever  increasing  number  of  valiant  cham- 
pions,4 and  the  result  has  been  to  bring  into  prominence  the 
remarkable  evidence  for  the  stand  of  conservative  scholars. 

The  first  two  chapters  of  Luke  are  found  in  all  the  texts  of 
the  Gospel  that  have  come  down  to  us.  The  Muratorian  Canon 
implies  that  the  Gospel  began  with  them.5  True,  they  were 
rejected  by  both  the  Ebionites  and  Marcion,  but  this  was  on 
account  of  special  christological  theories  to  which  the  contents  of 
these  chapters  were  opposed.     Irenaeus   (^202)   defends  these 

1  Luke  i.  1-4.  Cf .  Blass;  Phil,  of  the  Gospels,  7  ff.  Plummer:  Comment,  on 
Luke,  1-5. 

2  Wellhausen  (Das  Evang.  Luc.)  drops  these  chapters  without  a  word  of  expla- 
nation; Schmeidel  is  confident  that  the  Gospel  of  Luke  "once  was  without  the  first 
two  chapters"  (art.  Mary  in  E.  B.,  2961);  they  "must  come  from  quite  other 
hands"  thinks  Usener  (art.  Nativity  E.  B.);  Loisy  maintains  that  at  least  the 
hymns  and  verses  relating  to  the  Virgin  Birth  must  be  attributed  to  the  redactor 
(Les  ecrits  des  Luc,  RHLr  N.  S.  IV  (1913)  367).  Cf.  also  Lobstein  (the  Virgin 
Birth,  41),  Lester  (the  Historic  Jesus,  57-58),  Soltau  (Birth  of  J.  C,  49-50). 

3Cf.  Conrady  (Die  Quelle  der  kanonischen  Kindheitsgesch,  J.  728);  Bousset 
(Jesus,  1),  Harnack  (What  is  Christianity?  30),  Loisy  (the  Gospel  and  the  Church, 
39),  Campbell  (The  New  Theology,  101),  Martin  (The  Life  of  Jesus,  54-55);  J. 
Weiss  (Die  Schriften  des  n.  T.,  412);  O.  Pfleiderer  (Primitive  Christianity,  II. 
109);  Wernle  (The  Sources  of  Our  Knowledge  of  the  Life  of  Jesus,  100);  Vblter 
(Die  Evang.  Erzahlungen  von  der  Geburt  und  Kindheit  Jesu,  131). 

4  Steinmeyer,  Die  Geschichte  der  Geburt  des  Herrn  u.  seiner  ersten  Schritte  im 
Leben;  Sweet,  The  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus  Christ;  Durand,  The  Childhood  of 
Jesus  Christ;  Steinmetzer,  Die  Geschichte  der  Geburt  und  Kindheit  Christi;  Orr, 
The  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ;  Box,  The  Virgin  Birth.  The  man  who  has  done  the 
greatest  work  in  upholding  and  vindicating  Luke's  historical  trustworthiness  is 
Ramsay  in  his  works:  Was  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem?  Luke  the  Physician, 
Luke's  Narrative  of  the  Birth  of  Jesus  in  Exp.  ser.  8  vol.  IV  (1912)  481-507;  The 
Bearing  of  Recent  Discoveries  on  Trustworthiness  of  New  Testament. 

6  The  Muratorian  Canon,  I,  says  that  Luke  wrote  in  order  and  "began  his 
narrative  with  the  nativity  of  John,"  A-NF  V.  603. 


62     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

chapters  against  Marcion,1  Justin  Martyr  (^160)  shows  his 
opposition  to  Marcion  2  and  quotes  from  the  Infancy  sections,3 
and  an  acquaintance  with  the  early  chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
is  implied  by  Ignatius  Martyr  (^110-115),  who  frequently  refers 
to  the  Virgin  Birth.4 

External  evidence  entitles  one  to  trace  these  chapters  back 
to  the  beginning  of  the  first  century,  thus  favoring  the  view  that 
they  belong  to  the  original  Gospel  of  Luke;  but  this  is  all  but 
superfluous,  since  the  internal  evidence  is  so  plain  and  convincing. 
That  the  early  section  "contains  the  same  peculiarities  of  Luke 
as  are  apparent  in  the  other  portions  of  the  Gospel  and  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,"  5  cannot  well  be  denied.  In  fact,  as  Hawkins 
points  out,  although  Luke  i-ii  is  one  ninth  part  of  the  whole  Gospel, 
it  contains  almost  exactly  one  seventh  of  the  characteristic  words,6 
and  even  taking  the  Acts  into  consideration,  the  Lucan  character- 
istic words  are  most  frequently  used  in  the  Infancy  narrative.7 

Although  the  first  two  chapters  form  an  integral  part  of  the 
Third  Gospel;  although  the  wording  is  Lucan  and  reveals  Luke's 
hand,  yet  strange  to  say  the  style  is  in  great  contrast  to  other 
parts  of  his  work,  especially  to  the  prologue.  Semitic  idioms  and 
expressions  shine  through  the  Greek  clothing  in  almost  every  verse, 
suiting  the  ideas  expressed  which  are  not  such  as  we  would  expect 
from  a  gentile  like  Luke,  but  are  those  of  the  Old  Testament  times 
and  of  Palestinian  origin.  The  ideas,  thoughts  and  occurrences 
are  so  Jewish  and  so  Palestinian  that  there  is  little  possibility  that 
they  were  invented  by  Luke,  grant  him  what  genius  one  may. 
The  poetic  charm  and  the  Israelitic  spirit  in  the  inserted  psalms 

1  Adv.  Haer.  I.  27,  2  ff;  III.  14,  4,  etc.    Cf .  Tertullian,  Adv.  Marcion,  IV.  5  ff. 
2 1.  Apol.  XXVI.  LXVII. 

3  Clearly,  he  was  acquainted  with  both  Mt.  i.-ii  and  Luke,  i.-ii.,  Dial  LXXVIII. 
C,  etc. 

4  Ephes.  XVIII.  XIX;  Trail.  XIX.,  etc. 

6  Meyer,  Comment,  on  Mark  and  Luke,  I.  314.  Harnack  demonstrates  that  the 
Infancy  section  contains  Lucan  characteristics  (Luke  the  Physician,  97-101  and 
199-219),  but  on  account  of  the  presence  of  the  two  non-Lucan  words,  he  rejects 
Luke  i.  34-35.  So,  too,  does  Weinel  (Ausleg.  d.  apost.  Bekenntnisses  u.  ntl.  For- 
schung  ZntlW  II  (1901)  37  ff.)  Zimmermann  (Evangelium  des  Luk.  1  u.  2,  StKr 
LXXVI  (1903)  273  ff.),  Loisy  (RHLr  N.S.  IV  (1913)  367),  Hillman  (JPrTh  XVII 
(1891)  224),  and  others.  The  genuineness  of  these  verses  is  vindicated  by  Gigot 
IthQ  VIII  (1913)  123  ff.,  Box,  ZntlW  VI  (1905)  91-93,  Bardenhewer,  Maria 
Verkttndigung,  6  ff. 

6  Horae  Synopticae,  24-25. 

7  Id.,  175. 


TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF  LUKE  ii.  49  63 

and  narrative  portion  of  Luke  i.  and  ii,  are  comparable  only  to 
the  finest  parts  of  the  book  of  Samuel.  To  quote  Zahn,  they  "  could 
not  have  been  written  by  a  Greek  like  Luke.  They  must  have 
originated  in  Palestine,  where  men  and  women  of  prophetic  tem- 
perament and  prophetic  gifts  were  closely  associated  with  the 
beginnings  and  progress  of  Christianity."  1 

What  were  his  sources  for  these  first  two  chapters?  First,  as 
to  the  language  of  St.  Luke's  source:  it  was  not  Greek.  It  had 
been  generally  held  to  be  Aramaic,2  but  Lagarde,3  and  after  him 
Dalman4  have  pointed  out  that  the  coloring  throughout  Luke 
i.-ii.  is  distinctly  Hebrew.  Yet  Dalman  thinks  that  a  Hebrew 
source  is  unproven  and  that  Luke  himself  may  be  responsible 
for  the  Hebraisms,  writing  "with  greater  consistency  than  usual 
in  Biblical  style."  5  Others  contend,  and  it  would  seem  with 
good  reason,  that  Dalman  has  gone  too  far  in  excluding  a  Hebrew 
source  from  the  composition  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  the  Third 
Gospel.6  Also  scholars  are  not  agreed  as  to  whether  the  sources 
were  written  or  oral;  a  fair  number  think  they  were  written,7 
while  others  (principally  Ramsay 8  and  Harnack  9)  hold  they  were 
oral. 

Who  then  is  St.  Luke's  authority  for  the  facts  that  appear  in 

1  Introd.  to  New  Test.,  Ill,  112.  Cf.  Bardenhewer,  Maria,  Verkiindigung,  28, 
260;  Machen,  Origin  of  Luke  i.  ii.,  PrthR  X  (1912)  260;  Sweet,  Birth  and  Infancy 
of  J.  C,  136-138;  Sanday,  Life  of  Christ  in  Recent  Research,  165-166. 

2  Thus  Wright,  Gospel  of  St.  Luke,  2;  Moffatt,  Introd.,  275,  etc. 

3  Mitteilungen,  III.  345. 

4  Words  of  Jesus,  39,  and  others. 

5  Id.  It  is  also  the  view  of  Lagrange,  Evang.  Selon  S.  Luc.  lxxxvii. 

6  Cf.  Box  (The  VirgiD  Birth,  43),  Briggs  (New  Light  on  the  Life  of  Christ,  64). 
The  latter  holds  there  were  original  Hebrew  poems,  and  Luke's  Infancy  section  is 
no  more  than  a  setting  for  them.  More  likely  is  the  view  of  Torrey  that  Luke 
translated  into  Greek  a  Hebrew  document  in  which  the  poems  were  already  set. 
(Translations  from  the  original  Aramaic  Gospels,  in  Studies  in  Hist,  of  Rel.,  pres.  to 
C.  H.  Toy,  290-295).  Resch  tried  to  reconstruct  a  Hebrew  source  at  the  basis  of 
the  Infancy  section  of  Matthew,  and  Luke  (Das  Kindheits  Evang.,  T.TJ.X.  (1897) 
203,  215),  but  failed.  Cf.  Mangenot  (Luc.  in  VDB.IV  398);  Machen  (The  New 
Testament  Account  of  the  Birth  of  Christ,  PrthR  III  (1905)  649).  Conrady's 
fantastic  theory  (Die  Quelle  der  kanonischen  Kindheitsgesch.  J.,  728),  that  the 
childhood  narratives  are  based  on  the  Protevangelium  of  James,  is  rejected  by  all. 
Cf.  Durand  (The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ,  185). 

7  E.g.  B.  Weiss  (Introd.  to  New  Test .,  297),  Zahn  (Introd.  to  New  Test.  Ill,  113). 
Purves  (The  Story  of  the  Birth,  B.W.  VIII  (1896)  246),  Plummer  (Comment,  on 
Luke,  7),  Loisy  (Les  fivang.  synopt.,  I.  384),  Briggs  (New  Light  on  the  Life  of. 
Christ,  164),  Torrey  (op.  cit.  295). 

8  Luke  the  Physician,  13,  Was  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem?  88. 

9  Luke  the  Physician,  102,  n.  3. 


64     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

the  childhood  account,  facts  such  as  the  two  annunciations, 
which  could  be  known  only  to  the  families  of  John  and  Jesus, 
facts  such  as  the  very  thoughts  of  Mary,  which  could  be  known 
to  herself  alone?  It  was  not  according  to  ancient  custom  for  one 
to  name  his  authority,  but  in  such  passages  as  i.  29;  ii.  7,  19,  33, 
50,  51,  Luke  plainly  implies  that  Mary  was  at  least  his  final 
authority,  as  is  held  by  most  scholars.1  Plummer2  says  that 
Mary  herself  "may  have  been  the  writer  of  the  documents  used 
by  Luke"  while  Ramsay3  and  Sanday4  hold  that  there  was  a 
woman  intermediary,  the  latter  mentioning  Joanna  of  Chusa. 
On  this  point  there  may  be  a  difference,  but  in  any  case  it  is  not 
necessary  to  suppose  more  than  one  document  or  intermediary 
"between  Luke's  finished  narrative  and  Mary's  artless  story."  5 

About  the  year  57  a.d.  St.  Luke  accompanied  St.  Paul  to 
Jerusalem  where  they  met  St.  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord  and 
the  head  of  the  church  (Acts  xxi.  17  ff.),  and  during  the  two  follow- 
ing years  while  St.  Paul  was  a  prisoner  in  Jerusalem  and  Caesarea 
the  Third  Evangelist  had  an  opportunity  of  learning  the  facts  at 
first  hand,  either  from  documents  or  from  witnesses,  and  of  be- 
coming acquainted  with  the  incidents  which  could  originally  have 
been  known  only  to  Mary  and  the  Holy  Family.  He  had  the  quali- 
fications necessary  to  avail  himself  of  this  opportunity,  and  that 
he  did  so  is  shown  in  his  work. 

How  are  we,  then,  to  regard  these  Hebraistic  chapters  of  Luke? 
The  evidence  strongly  bears  out  the  view  of  Plummer,  "we  have 
here  the  earliest  documentary  evidence  which  may  justly  be  called 
contemporary";6    and  as  a  consequence  we  have  the  further 

*To  mention  a  few:  Renan  (Les  fivang.,  280),  Olshausen  (Gospels,  I.  82), 
Godet  (Introd.on  New  Test.  II,  475),  Harnack  (Date  of  Acts  and  Syn.  Gosp.,  155), 
Zahn  (Introd.  to  New  Test.  III.  113),  Knowling  (Our  Lord's  Virgin  Birth,  22), 
George  (The  Gospels  of  the  Infancy,  OT-NT  St  X  (1890)  282),  Purves  (The  Story 
of  the  Birth  BW  VIII  (1896)  426,  Wright  Luke,  HDG  II.  89),  Briggs  (New  Light 
on  the  Life  of  Christ,  165),  Nolloth  (The  Rise  of  the  Christian  Religion,  147), 
Milner  (St.  Luke,  ii),  Harden  (art.  Mary  the  Virgin)  HDG  II.  141,  etc. 

2  Comment,  on  Luke,  7. 

3  Was  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem?  74-78,  Luke  the  Physician,  13. 

4  The  Virgin  Birth,  ExpT  XIV  (1902-3)  296  ff.  Cf .  art.  Jesus  Christ,  HDB  II. 
644. 

6  Sweet,  The  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus  Christ,  321. 

"Comment,  on  Luke,  7.  Sanday  concludes,  too,  that  these  early  chapters  of 
Luke  "are  essentially  the  most  archaic  thing  in  the  whole  New  Testament,  older 
really  in  substance  —  whatever  be  the  date  of  their  actual  committal  to  writing  — 
than  1  and  2  Thessalonians"  (Life  of  Christ  in  Recent  Research,  166). 


TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF  LUKE  ii.  49  65 

conclusion  that  the  tradition  contained  in  these  chapters,  to  use 
the  words  of  Box,  "has  high  claims  to  historical  credibility."  1 

2.    THE  TEMPLE   EPISODE 

The  account  of  the  episode  of  the  Boy  Christ  in  the  Temple 
comes  at  the  end  of  the  Infancy  section.2  At  the  outset  it  is  sig- 
nificant to  note  that  negative  scholars,  as  a  rule,  attribute  far  more 
historical  value  to  it  than  to  what  precedes.  The  previous  portion 
reflects  the  Virgin  Birth  which  these  men  are  unwilling  to  accept. 
They  claim  that  the  section  Luke  ii.  40-52  does  not  contain, 
rather  is  opposed  to,  this  doctrine,3  and  that  representing  the  Child 
Jesus  as  submitting  to  the  Law  and  developing  in  a  human  man- 
ner, it  is  older  and  may  truly  be  considered  a  fragment  of  Judaeo- 
Christian  literature  which  was  inserted  by  the  redactor  without 
being  harmonized  with  its  surroundings.4 

On  the  other  hand,  the  genuineness  or  historicity  of  Luke  ii. 
40-52  is  denied  by  B.  Bauer,5  Strauss,6  Renan,7  Loisy,8  O.  Pflei- 
derer,9  H.  Holtzmann,10  Jeremias,11  J.  Weiss,12  Volter,13  Monte- 

1  The  Gospel  narrative  of  the  Nativity,  ZntlW  VI  (1905)  100.  Ramsay  does  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  Luke  "should  be  placed  along  with  the  very  greatest  of  his- 
torians" and  this  on  account  of  recent  discoveries  and  vindications  (The  Bearing 
of  Recent  Disc,  on  Trustworthiness  of  New  Test.  222).  From  these  same  facts 
Robertson  also  concludes,  "Luke  is  shown  to  be  the  careful  and  accurate  historian 
that  he  professed  to  be"  (The  Romance  of  the  Census  in  Luke's  Gospel,  Bib.  Rev. 
V  (1920)  506). 

2  The  similarities  of  expression  in  verses  40  and  52  can  be  accounted  for  by  the 
fact  that  both  summarize  a  number  of  years  in  Christ's  life,  and  hence  these  verses 
need  not  indicate  a  separate  source.    Cf.  Schleiermacher,  Essay  on  Luke,  41. 

3  Cf.  Lobstein  (V.  Birth,  49),  Schmiedel  (Art.,  Mary,  EB),  Loisy  (Les  Evang. 
Synopt.,  382),  H.  Holtzmann  (Hand  Comment.,  51),  Reville  (Jesus  de  Naz.,  409, 
note),  Barrows  (Mythical  and  Legendary  Elements  in  the  New  Test.,  NW  VIII 
(1899),  292),  Soltau  (The  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ,  28,  29),  Neumann  (Jesus,  47). 
Conservative  scholars  on  the  contrary  claim  that  this  passage  witnesses  to  and  con- 
firms Christ's  supernatural  conception.  Cf.  Gigot  (The  V.  Birth  in  Luke  ii.  IthQ 
VIII  (1913)  429-433),  Durand  (The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ,  121). 

4  Lobstein  (op.  cit.,  49),  Reville  (op.  cit.,  409),  Loisy  (op.  cit.,  382),  H.  Holtzmann 
(op.  cit.),  Barrows  (op.  cit.).  Cf.  on  matter,  Budham  (The  Integrity  of  Luke  i. 
and  ii.,  ExpT  VIII  (1896-7),  177),  Durand  (op.  cit.,  120). 

6  Kritik  der  Evangelien,  I.  II.  313. 

6  Life  of  Jesus,  197-200. 

7  Life  of  Jesus,  60. 

8  Op.  cit.,  384. 

9  Christian  Origins,  230. 

10  Op.  cit.,  51. 

11  Babylonisches  im  n.  T.,  109. 

12  Die  Schriften  des  n.  T.,  430. 

13  Die  evang.  Erzahlungen  der  Geburt.,  75-81. 


66     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

fiore,1  and  A.  Martin.2  Others  express  doubts  and  hesitate  to 
say  whether  or  not  it  is  historical,  such  as  Hase,3  Reville,4  Schmie- 
del,5  Schenkel,6  Guignebert,7  Miller.8  And  others  ignore  the 
account  altogether. 

The  reasons  assigned  for  rejecting  as  unhistorical  the  episode 
of  the  Boy  Jesus  in  the  Temple  are  drawn  mostly  fron  analogies 
and  resemblances  between  the  Gospel  story  and  events  related  of 
other  personages,  namely  Buddha,9  Josephus,10  Moses,11  Samuel,12 
Solomon,13  David,14  and  Alexander  the  Great.15 

In  the  first  place,  in  none  of  the  cases  brought  forward  is  it  a 
historical  fact  that  the  occurrence  which  is  supposed  to  be  analo- 
gous is  connected  with  the  twelfth  year.16    Secondly,  the  very  fact 

I  The  Synoptic  Gospels,  II.  863. 

*  Life  of  Jesus,  76-78. 

3  Life  of  Jesus,  51.    He  treats  the  question  at  length  in  Geschichte  Jesu,  224. 

*  Jesus  de  Naz.,  410  ff.    Cf.  Birth  and  Infancy  of  J.,  NW  I  (1892)  721. 

6  "Mary,"E.B.c.2966,  also  Die  Haupt-probleme  des  Lebens  Jesu-Forschung,  94. 

6  Das  Charakterbild  J.,  35  (trans.  58,  59). 

7  Manuel  d'Hist.  anc.  du  Chret.,  175. 

«  Our  knowledge  of  Christ  .  .  .  51,  cf.  BW  LXIII  (1914)  76. 

9  Lalita  Vistara,  XI.  The  story  is  found  in  two  forms.  In  the  Pali  form,  Buddha, 
an  infant  of  five  months,  was  left  by  his  nurses  under  a  jambu-tree  which  continued 
to  afford  him  shade  despite  the  fact  that  the  sun  had  gone  round  in  the  heavens. 
In  the  form  of  the  Northern  school,  as  a  young  man  he  retired  from  his  father  who 
after  a  search  found  him  in  a  meditative  trance  in  the  arrested  shade  of  the  jambu- 
tree.  (Cf.  Aiken,  the  Dhamma  of  Gotama,  246-247).  The  analogy  supposing 
dependence  is  held  by  Pfleiderer  (Christian  Origins,  230),  Hase  (New  Test.  Parallels, 
31),  Campbell  (The  New  Theology,  101),  Berg  van  Eysinga  (Jtidische  Einfliisse, 
27),  and  others. 

10  In  his  own  life  (11)  Josephus  tells  that  "when  fourteen  he  was  consulted  by 
the  high  priests  and  principal  men  of  his  city  concerning  points  of  the  Law."  Cf. 
Strauss,  Life  of  Jesus,  197,  note),  Hausrath  (Jesus  u.  die  ntl.  Schriftsteller,  II.  93), 
Krenkel  (Josephus  und  Lucas,  75  ff.). 

II  In  his  twelfth  year  Moses  is  said  to  have  left  his  father's  house  and  to  be  wise 
above  his  years:  Philo  (De  vita  Moses,  app.  edit.  Mangey  II.  2,  p.  83),  and 
Josephus  (Ant.  II.  ix.  6).  Cf.  Strauss  (op.  cit.),  Jeremias  (op.  cit.,  109).  Hase  (Life 
of  J.,  51). 

12  Samuel  is  said  to  have  prophesied  in  his  twelfth  year,  Josephus  (Ant.  V.  x.  4). 
Cf.  Strauss  (op.  cit.),  Hase  (op.  cit.);  and  as  a  boy  Samuel  is  left  in  the  Temple, 
I  K.  i.  22  ff.    Volter,  Die  evang.  Erzahlungen  der  Geburt,  76-77. 

13  It  is  recorded  in  Ignatius'  interpolated  epistle  AdMagnes.III.that  at  the  age  of 
twelve  David  and  Solomon  gave  expression  to  wise  judgments.    Cf .  Strauss  (op.  cit.). 

14  Id. 

16  Young  Alexander  questioned  the  Persian  Ambassadors  to  his  father's  court 
concerning  their  mode  of  fighting,  etc.  Plutarch's  Vit.  Alex.  5  (II.  p.  s42,  B), 
Jeremias  (op.  cit.);  O.  Pfleiderer  adds  what  Suetonius  says  of  Augustus  Octavius 
(XCIV.). 

16  Josias  (according  to  2  Paralip.  xxxiv.  3)  "in  the  twelfth  year  of  his  reign 
cleansed  Juda  and  Jerusalem."  This  account  is  not  an  analogy,  for  Josias  was  then 
twenty  years  of  age. 


TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF  LUKE  ii.  49  67 

that  other  great  geniuses  gave  or  were  supposed  to  give  in  boyhood 
a  premonition  of  their  greatness  could  not  of  itself  account  for  St* 
Luke's  story.  Why  did  this  fact  have  no  influence  on  the  other 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  who  pass  over  Jesus'  boyhood? 
Then  there  is  the  difficulty  of  explaining  how  these  legends,  or 
occurrences,  found  their  way  into  Palestine,  were  responsible  for 
the  story  of  the  Boy  Christ,  and  were  the  reason  why  it  was  incor- 
porated in  the  Gospel  account,  while  some  of  the  Apostles  were 
still  alive  and  in  the  country  where  the  Gospel  events  took  place. 
Some  of  the  analogies  mentioned  are  far-fetched  and  we  need  not 
delay  on  them.1  The  one  most  frequently  mentioned  is  that  of 
Buddha;  yet  to  quote  Aiken,  "it  is  plain  that  with  the  single  ex- 
ception of  the  search  for  the  young  prince  .  .  .  this  legend  is  quite 
unlike  the  story  of  the  lost  Jesus."  2  The  most  striking  analogy, 
at  first  sight,  is  Josephus'  account  of  His  being  consulted  on  the 
Law  as  a  boy  of  fourteen.  But  his  work  was  written  after  the  Third 
Gospel,  or  at  any  rate  not  long  enough  previously  to  have  any 
influence  on  Luke;  in  any  case,  to  use  the  words  of  O.  Holtzmann, 
"there  is  nothing  at  all  in  common  between  the  perfect  simplicity 
of  Luke's  narrative  and  the  vain  self-glorification  of  Josephus."  3 

The  best  analogy  mentioned,  the  one  that  in  any  way  may 
have  had  an  influence  on  the  Gospel  narrative  is  that  of  Samuel, 
—  not  because  he  is  said  to  have  begun  to  prophesy  at  the  age  of 
twelve  which  Josephus  (Ant.  V.  x.  4)  alone  mentions.  There  are 
striking  resemblances  (especially  between  I  K.  iii.  19;  ii.  26)  of 
Samuel  on  one  hand,  and  Lk.  i.  66,  80  of  John,  and  Lk.  ii.  40,  52 
of  Jesus;  also  between  Anna's  Canticle  I  K.  ii.  1-10,  and  Zachary's 
Lk.  i.  68-79  and  Mary's  Lk.  i.  46-55),  yet  there  are  striking  differ- 
ences. Extrinsic  or  literary  dependence4  would  account  for  the 
facts.  When  St.  Luke  was  writing  the  Infancy  narrative  of 
Christ  in  Whom  Jewish  history  reached  its  greatest  climax,  he  may 
have  been  influenced  after  a  literary  way  by  the  childhood  account 
of  the  great  prophet  Samuel  who  also  witnessed  a  climax  in  the 
history  of  the  Jewish  people.  The  account  of  Anna  and  her  "  asked- 
of-God"  child,  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and  most  impressive 

1  Cf.  Meyer  (Comment,  on  Mk.  and  Lk.  i.  347),  Keim  (Jesus  of  Naz.  134-5), 
Steinmetzer  (Geschichte  der  Geburt  u.  Kindheit  C.  202)  and  others. 

2  The  Dhamma  of  Gotamma,  247. 

3  Life  of  Jesus,  100.     Cf .  also  a  similar  judgment  by  Zahn  (Introd.  to  New  Test. 
III.  134)  and  by  Barth  (Die  Hauptprobleme  des  Lebens  J.,  269). 

4  Literary  influence  does  not  militate  against  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  inspiration. 


68     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

narratives  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  its  simplicity  and  realism 
especially  appealing  to  an  artistic  temperament,  could  not  but 
impress  the  author  of  "the  most  beautiful  book  ever  written." 
The  effect  would  manifest  itself  in  the  Evangelist  or  the  author  of 
the  Hebrew  original  emphasizing  certain  points,  recording  certain 
facts,  omitting  others,  thus  (whether  intentionally  or  not)  bringing 
out  resemblances  interwoven  in  the  accounts  of  John  and  Jesus.1 
Outside  of  this  there  is  no  influence  and  there  certainly  is  no 
dependence  of  facts;  the  boy  Samuel  is  left  at  the  Temple  (I.  K.  i. 
22,  28)  whereas  the  Boy  Jesus  only  visits  the  Temple  at  feast 
time  (Lk.  ii.  42),  living  at  Nazareth  (ii.  39).  In  the  Temple  God 
speaks  to  Samuel  (I.  K.  iii.  4-14),  whereas  Christ  stupefies  the 
doctors  by  His  understanding  and  His  answers  (Lk.  ii.  47).  Samuel 
calls  God  "Lord"  and  speaks  of  Himself  as  "servant"  (I.  K.  iii.  10) 
whereas  Jesus  refers  to  God  as  "My  Father"  (Lk.  ii.  49).  In 
spite  of  any  literary  influence  that  the  childhood  account  of  Samuel 
had  on  Luke's  Infancy  narrative,  the  facts  recorded  of  the  Boy 
Jesus  are  quite  different  from  these  recorded  of  Samuel;  this  is 
worth  noticing,  as  it  is  an  indirect  argument  for  the  historicity  of 
the  Lucan  episode. 

Other  objections  against  the  historicity  of  St.  Luke's  account, 
drawn  from  its  alleged  unlikeliness,  namely,  how  the  Boy  Jesus 
could  get  lost,2  how  the  parents  could  be  a  whole  day  without 
missing  Him,3  how  they  could  be  "three  days"  without  finding 
Him,4  the  Boy's  unnatural  and  unfilial  attitude,5  such  objections 
are  not  serious  ones  and  can  be  easily  answered. 

As  to  positive  arguments  for  the  genuineness  and  historicity 
of  the  section  Luke  ii.  40-52,  we  can  quote  the  same  textual  and 
external  evidence  as  we  gave  above  to  indicate  that  Luke  i.  and  ii. 
is  an  integral  part  of  the  Third  Gospel.  Besides,  this  section  is 
written  in  Luke's  characteristic  vocabulary;    Harnack  has  gone 

1  The  LXX.  had  a  certain  literary  influence  on  St.  Luke.  Even  in  the  view, 
which  is  very  probable,  that  Luke  merely  translated  a  Hebrew  original,  a  literary 
influence  is  all  the  more  likely.  The  literary  influence  of  any  similar  account  in 
the  Old  Testament  would  probably  tell  on  the  writer  of  the  classical  Hebrew  source. 

2  He  was  not  lost,  He  deliberately  "remained." 

3  Objection  raised  by  Martin,  Life  of  J.,  76.  But  it  shows  what  confidence  they 
had  in  their  Son. 

4  Martin,  loc.  cit.  They  had  gone  a  day's  journey,  it  took  another  to  return, 
and  they  found  Him  on  the  third. 

6  Martin,  op.  cit.,  77,  78,  and  others.  But  the  attitude  was  not  unnatural  and 
unfilial  for  One  who  transcended  earthly  relations. 


TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF  LUKE  ii.  49  69 

into  each  verse  to  demonstrate  this.1  Indeed  there  are  words 
and  expressions  here  which  are  not  found  in  the  New  Testament 
outside  of  St.  Luke,  for  instance,  xoct'  2to<;  (41),  xaua  t6  e0o<; 
(42),  utui^sivsv  (43),  ive£iJT0uv  (44),  6Buvwyisvoi  (48),2  t£  Sti  (49). 
We  may  point  out  also  other  notable  Lucan  characteristics.  The 
verb  uxoaTp!q>etv  (43,  46)  runs  through  the  Third  Gospel  and  Acts; 
it  is  found  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  only  in  St.  Paul 
(twice).3  The  Hebraic  construction  fy  r<p,  with  the  infinitive  as  in 
43,  is  found  25  times  in  Luke,  once  in  Matthew  and  once  in  Mark.4 
Another  Hebraism  xal  fyfovro  (42,  46)  is  found  42  times  in  the 
Third  Gospel,  21  times  in  Acts  and  only  5  times  in  Matthew,  4 
times  in  Mark  and  not  at  all  in  John.5  Another  Lucan  charac- 
teristic is  xal  atk6<;  (50)  where  aik6<;  has  no  real  intensive  force 
and  where  kol\  is  merely  copulative.  Yet  this  Lucan  Greek  wording 
is  only  a  covering  for  the  Jewish  background;  Hebrew  style, 
expressions,  modes  of  thought  betray  themselves  in  every  verse, 
the  whole  picture  of  the  "parents"  and  the  "Boy"  in  the  Temple 
is  intensely  Hebraistic  and  Palestinian,  the  warm  Jewish  devotion 
and  respect  for  the  Law  is  breathed  forth  at  every  step,  the  entire 
background  drawn  in  the  text  is  most  realistic  for  the  early  decades 
of  our  era. 

After  the  early  Hebrew  atmosphere  that  pervades  the  account, 
the  most  striking  feature  of  the  narrative  is  its  simplicity.  The 
tone  is  sincere  and  in  no  way  artificial.  Moreover,  there  are 
points  which  the  composer  of  a  legend  would  not  record,  the  Boy 
Jesus  remaining  behind  without  the  permission  of  His  parents, 
His  abrupt  words  offering  no  apology,6  yet  His  subjecting  Himself, 
the  parents  themselves  being  surprised  at  the  scene  before  the 
Doctors,  their  not  understanding  the  saying  Jesus  uttered,  —  all 
these  are  marks  of  "psychological  truth,"  7  and  strong  indications 

1  Luke  the  Physician,  212-214;  so  have  Zimmermann;  Evangelium  des  Lukas. 
StKr  LXXVI  (1903)  263;  and  Machen,  the  Origin  of  the  First  Two  Chapters  of  Lk. 
PrthR  X  (1912)  252-253. 

2  This  word  is  also  one  of  Luke's  medical  terms.  Cf.  Vogel,  Zur  Charakteristik 
des  Lukas,  62. 

3  Cf .  Plummer's  Comment.,  35. 

4  Cf.  Dalman,  Words  of  J.,  33. 

6  Id.,  32;  Zimmermann,  op.  cit.,  250. 

6  Schleiermacher  sees  in  the  "inexplicable  indifference"  on  the  part  of  Jesus  a 
sure  pledge  that  the  whole  story  is  not  fiction  (Essay  on  Luke,  42). 

7  Box,  Virgin  Birth,  108. 


70     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

of  genuineness.  Seeing  "its  unadorned  simplicity  and  its  internal 
truth,"  Meyer1  strongly  defends  its  historicity;  so  does  Keim, 
who  declares  that  the  episode  "cannot  have  been  devised  by  human 
hands  which  left  to  themselves  were  always  betrayed  into  coarse- 
ness and  exaggeration  as  shown  by  the  apocryphal  gospels." 2 
The  historicity  is  upheld  not  only  by  Keim  and  Meyer,  but  also 
by  such  men  as  Schleiermacher,3  Tholuck,4  Stapfer,5  Furrer,6 
O.  Holtzmann,7  B.  Weiss,8  Nat.  Schmidt,9  Wendt,10  Stein- 
meyer.11 

The  words  of  the  Boy  Jesus  in  Luke  ii.  49  share  the  fate  of  the 
rest  of  the  episode  in  regard  to  the  question  of  historicity.12  These 
scholars  whom  we  have  mentioned  as  denying  or  doubting  the 
genuineness  of  the  episode  include  therein  the  first  recorded  say- 
ing; and  those  who  defend  the  historicity  of  the  episode  hold 
likewise  the  historicity  of  Christ's  words.  We  quote  one  of  the 
critics,  Wendt,  who  regards  it  from  his  standpoint:  "The  calm 
assurance  with  which  He  spoke  of  God  as  His  Father  and  of  His 
sojourn  in  His  Father's  house  as  if  it  were  a  matter  of  course,  and 
the  childish  naivete  and  simplicity  of  judgment  with  which  he 
perceived  it  a  necessary  duty  to  tarry  in  His  Father's  house  in 
spite  of  His  parents'  departure  and  their  anxious  quest  of  Him, 
all  these  traits  bear  evidently  the  stamp  of  truth."  13  Farrar, 
from  a  more  exalted  point  of  view,  says  about  it,  "This  answer,  so 
divinely  natural,  so  sublimely  noble,  bears  upon  itself  the  certain 
stamp  of  authenticity.  The  conflict  of  thoughts  which  it  implies; 
the  half-vexed  astonishment  which  it  expresses  that  they  should 

1  Comment,  on  Mk.  and  Lk.,  I.  347. 

2  Jesus  of  Naz.,  136. 

3  tJber  die  Schriften  des  Lukas,  38-41  transl.,  42. 

4  He  defends  the  genuineness  against  Strauss  (Die  Glaubwiirdigkeit  der  Evang. 
Geschichte,  211-221). 

6  J.  C.  before  His  Ministry,  39  ff. 

6  Leben  Jesu  Christi,  46. 

7  Life  of  Jesus,  99. 

8  Life  of  Jesus,  I.  278. 

9  The  Prophet  of  Naz.,  251  note. 

10  The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  95,  96. 

11  Die  Geschichte  der  Geburt  des  Herrn,  158-208. 

13  This  is  speaking  generally.  There  are  exceptions,  v.g.  Neumann  (Jesus,  47), 
who  calls  Lk.  ii.  40-52  a  "very  valuable  old  record  "  yet  says  about  verse  49:  "we 
must  simply  concede  that  this  answer  of  Jesus'  was  formulated  by  a  later 
writer." 

13  The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  99. 


TRUSTWORTHINESS  OF  LUKE  ii.  49  71 

so  little  understand  Him;  the  perfect  dignity,  and  yet  the  perfect 
humility,  which  it  combines,  lie  wholly  beyond  the  possibility  of 
invention.     It  is  in  accordance,  too,  with  all  His  ministry  .  .  . "  l 

There  is  a  remarkable  conformity  and  harmony  between 
Jesus'  earliest  recorded  saying  and  the  sayings  of  His  later  life, 
especially  Mark  iii.  21,  31-35;  yet  this  fact  should  not  warrant  one 
to  cast  suspicions  on  the  historicity  of  the  Boy  Jesus'  saying  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  invented  on  the  basis  of  other  sayings,  — 
which  is  done  by  Loisy,2  Pfleiderer,3  Montefiore,4  and  Volter.5 
The  uniqueness  of  the  saying  appears  from  the  fact  that  the  only 
parallels  that  can  be  discovered  are  ones  among  Christ's  own 
words; 6  and  can  it  not  be  argued  that  the  harmony  between  the 
first  saying  and  those  of  the  public  ministry  is  rather  a  mark  of 
genuineness,  since  it  is  generally  admitted  that  a  great  unity  and 
uniformity  runs  through  all  of  Christ's  teaching?  Besides  the  view 
of  these  writers  requires  deliberate  deception  and  fraud  on  the 
part  of  the  author  of  the  Third  Gospel.  If  he  was  an  impostor, 
we  say  with  Ramsay,  "his  work  remains  one  of  the  most  incom- 
prehensible and  unintelligible  facts  of  literary  history."  7 

Luke  had  the  capabilities  and  the  opportunities  of  getting 
approximately  first-hand  information;  and  it  is  incredible  that 
one  who  was  brought  into  intimate  fellowship  with  a  Jewish 
Christian  group  at  Jerusalem  "of  whom  a  blood  relative  of  Jesus 
was  a  prominent  member,  would  have  accepted  any  important 
item  concerning  His  life  without  confirmation  from  the  lips  of 
James."  8  At  any  rate,  it  seems  clear  that  no  less  a  person  than 
Mary  is  the  final  authority  from  whom  directly  or  through  an 
intermediary  the  Evangelist  learned  the  answer  of  the  Boy  Jesus. 
The  pithy  abrupt  saying  was  most  strange  and  deep.     Coming 

1  The  Life  of  Christ,  36. 

2  Les  fivang.  Synopt.,  I.  381. 

3  Primitive  Christianity,  II.  113. 

4  Synoptic  Gospels,  II.  864. 
6  Op.  cit.,  78,  79. 

6  In  spite  of  Pfleiderer's  remarks  (Early  Christian  Conception  of  Christ,  45), 
there  is  very  little  resemblance  between  Christ's  saying  and  that  reported  of 
Buddha:  "Cast  aside  thy  ploughing,  O  my  father,  and  seek  higher."  Volter  is 
certainly  straining  a  point  when  he  bases  Christ's  words  on  expressions  of  Anna, 
I  K.  i.  22,  28,  as  well  as  on  Mk.  iii.  31-35  (op.  cit.,  79). 

7  Was  Christ  born  in  Beth.?  19. 

8  Sweet,  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus  Christ,  321. 


72     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

as  the  climax  to  a  period  of  great  worry  and  anxiety,  it  must  have 
made  a  deep  impression  on  the  sorrowful  mother;  it  could  be 
easily  preserved  (ii.  51)  to  a  time  when  it  was  understood  in  all  its 
bearings  (ii.  50).  Such  a  saying,  with  such  attending  circum- 
stances, could  be  without  difficulty  exactly  remembered  even 
though  many  years  had  elapsed  since  its  utterance. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND  OF  LUKE  ii.  49 

1.    CIRCUMSTANCES  LEADING  TO  THE   UTTERANCE  OP  JESUS'   FIRST 
RECORDED    SAYING 

After  describing  Christ's  birth  (ii.  7  ff.),  His  Circumcision, 
when  eight  days  old  (ii.  21),  and  His  Presentation  in  the  Temple, 
when  about  forty  days  old1  (ii.  22  ff.),  St.  Luke  writes  concerning 
the  Holy  Family:  "and  after  they  had  performed  all  things 
according  to  the  law  of  the  Lord,  they  returned  into  Galilee,  to 
their  own  city  Nazareth"  (ii.  39).  This  statement  is  to  be  under- 
stood in  the  sense  that  finally  the  "parents"  and  the  Child 
returned  to  Nazareth,  not  immediately  but  after  some  interval; 
for  in  the  meantime  took  place  the  flight  into  Egypt  to  escape 
the  murderous  hand  of  Herod  the  Great  (Matthew  ii.  13-18). 
As  this  king  soon  died  the  stay  in  Egypt  was  of  short  duration. 
When  the  Holy  Family  returned  to  Palestine  they  heard  that  the 
wicked  "Archelaus  reigned  in  Judea  in  the  room  of  Herod  his 
Father"  (Matthew  ii.  22),  and  in  fear  they  "retired  into  the  quar- 
ters of  Galilee"  (id.)  "to  a  city  called  Nazareth"  (Matthew  ii.  23). 

During  the  next  nine  years  (b.c.  4-a.d.  6)  under  the  sovereignty 
of  Caesar  Augustus  of  Rome,  Archelaus  reigned  as  Ethnarch  of 
Judaea,  Idumaea  and  Samaria.2  He  surpassed  his  father  "in 
cruelty,  oppression,  luxury,  the  grossest  egotism  and  the  lowest 
sensuality,  and  that  without  possessing  the  talent  or  the  energy 
of  Herod."3  Nor  was  there  political  peace  and  contentment  in 
populous  fertile  Galilee,  —  where  Jesus  was  growing  up.  The 
accession  of  Archelaus'  brother,  the  incestuous  Herod  Antipas 

1  Other  figures  are  suggested  and  there  are  various  arrangements  for  the 
chronology  of  the  Infancy  section  and  for  harmonizing  the  accounts  of  Matthew 
and  Luke;  cf.  Maas,  "Jesus  Christ"  in  Cath.  Enc.  VIII.  378.  Clemens,  "Infancy" 
HDG  I.  823,  Durand,  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ,  250-258. 

2  Jo^ephus,  Ant.  XVII.  xi.  1-4;  B.  J.  II.  vi.  3. 
8  Edersheim,  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus,  I.  220. 

73 


74     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

(Luke  iii.  19),  the  cunning  "fox"  (Luke  iii.  32),  as  tetrarch  (4  b.c- 
a.d.  39)  finds  the  country  in  revolt.  The  rebellion  is  quenched  in 
the  blood  of  the  patriots,  yet  is  followed  by  another  of  similar 
result1  (cf.  Luke  xiii.  1,  2). 

Having  a  large  percentage  of  Gentile  inhabitants  and  enjoying 
considerable  commerce,  Galilee  was  to  a  great  extent  free  from  the 
bigotry  and  fanaticism  characteristic  of  the  Southern  Province, 
and,  even  more  than  Judaea,  it  came  under  the  influence  of  the 
surrounding  Graeco-Roman  civilization.2  It  was  Roman  arms 
that  conquered  the  Holy  Land,  but  it  was  not  Roman  but  Greek 
culture,  language  and  ideas  that  held  sway  in  the  Empire. 

The  city  (x6Xiq  Matthew  ii.  23;  Luke  i.  26;  ii.  4,  39)  of  Naza- 
reth must  have  been  susceptible  to  this  Graeco-Roman  civilization, 
situated  as  it  was  on  a  great  route  of  traffic  and  intercourse  that 
led  from  the  East  to  the  sea.3  Here  it  was  that  Christ  passed 
through  the  different  stages  of  childhood  and  boyhood,  stages  for 
each  of  which  the  Jews  have  appropriate  names.4 

Was  there  an  elementary  school  in  Nazareth?  According  to  a 
later  Jewish  tradition  (Baba  Bathra  21a,  which  was  taken  to  be  by 
no  means  incredible),  Joshua  ben  Gamala  (high  priest  from  63-65 
a.d.)  enacted  that  teachers  of  boys  should  be  appointed  in  every 
province  and  in  every  town,  and  that  children  of  the  age  of  six 
or  seven  should  be  brought  to  them.5  Holding  that  this  measure 
presupposes  a  somewhat  longer  existence  of  boys'  schools,  Schiirer 
says  "one  may  without  hesitation  transfer  them  to  the  age  of 
Christ,  even  though  not  as  a  general  and  established  institution."  6 

1  Josephus,  Ant.  XVIII.  i.  1;  cf.  Edersheim,  Life  and  Times  of  J.,  I.  241. 

2  Cf.  Galilee,  HDG  I.  634;  Mathews,  Hist,  of  New  Testament  Times,  149; 
Mahaffy,  Silver  Age  of  the  Greek  World,  443-444.  The  ordinary  inhabitants  of 
the  towns  spoke  Aramaic  Greek  and  perhaps  Latin;  cf.  Mathews,  Hist,  of  New 
Testament  Times,  160;   Kennedy  Education,  HDB  I.  451. 

3  Cf.  Edersheim,  In  the  Days  of  Christ,  36,  Galilee,  in  HDG  I.  633;  Bardenhewer: 
Maria  Verkiindigung,  63-67,  Kent,  Biblical  Geography  and  History,  239-241. 

4  Cf.  Edersheim,  In  the  Days  of  Christ,  103-104.  See  also  Brough,  The  Early 
Life  of  Our  Lord.  There  is  an  excellent  article  on  Boyhood  (Jewish)  and  Boyhood 
of  Jesus,  by  Farmer  in  HDG  I.  221-230.  Careful  and  scholarly  work  is  shown  at 
every  step  and  apart  from  the  "dogmatic  conclusions"  it  is  the  best  I  have  read  on 
the  matter.  For  works  on  Jewish  education,  cf.  J.  Simon:  Education  et  lTn- 
struction  des  Enfants  chez  les  anciens  Juifs  (Leipzig  1879),  Feldman,  The  Jewish 
Child,  275  ff. 

6  Cf.  Edersheim,  In  the  Days  of  Christ,  134.  Schiirer,  Hist,  of  Jewish  People, 
vol.  II.  Div.  II.  49. 

6  Op.  cit.  vol.  II.  Div.  II.  49-50.  Also  Kennedy  (Education,  HDB  I.  450). 
Other  writers  are  not  so  positive,  but  hold  the  view  to  be  probable;   Edersheim 


THE  BACKGROUND  OF  LUKE  ii.  49  75 

Whether  or  not  there  was  one  of  these  schools  in  Nazareth,  indeed, 
irrespectively  of  any  education  received  elsewhere,  the  obligation 
of  instructing  children  remained  with  the  parents.1  The  only 
text  book  was  the  Bible,  wherein  the  Jews  found  solace  and 
refuge  from  persecution  and  Hellenism  and  in  which  there  was 
contained  a  literature  that  has  had  no  equal.  Every  opportunity 
was  used  to  make  the  child  acquainted  with  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 
There  were  little  rolls  of  parchment  hung  up  in  the  doorway,  and 
phylacteries  were  worn  on  the  forehead  and  on  the  wrist  containing 
choice  portions  of  Holy  Writ,  which  the  child  read  and  repeated 
as  soon  as  he  was  old  enough  to  do  so.  Hence  Josephus  could 
boast,  that  "from  earliest  consciousness"  the  Jews  "learned  the 
laws,  so  as  to  have  them,  as  it  were,  engraved  upon  the  soul."  2 

It  is  certain  that  there  was  a  synagogue  at  Nazareth 3  (cf  Luke 
iv.  16),  with  services  "not  only  on  Sabbaths  and  feast  days,  but 
also  on  the  second  and  the  fifth  days  of  the  week."  4  These  syna- 
gogue services,  with  their  lections  from  the  Law  (Acts  xv.  21)  and 
the  Prophets  (Luke  iv.  17-20;  Acts  xiii.  15),  constituted  an  im- 
portant factor  in  the  training  of  Jewish  boys.  Indeed  the  Jewish 
religion  was  a  ritualistic  and  ceremonial  religion,  "teaching  through 
the  eye  in  a  way  well  adapted  to  the  capacities  of  children."  8 
And  much  of  the  ceremonial  was  for  the  home;  thus  in  regard  to 
the  Pasch  or  Passover  most  of  the  service  was  conducted  in  the 
family  circle. 

According  to  the  Law  (Ex.  xiii.  14, 17;  xxxiv.  23,  24;  Lev.  xxiii. 
4-22;  Deut.  xvi.  16)  all  male  Israelites  were  obliged  to  appear 
in  the  Temple  thrice  a  year,  namely,  at  the  feast  of  Pasch,  the 
feast  of  Weeks  and  the  feast  of  Tabernacles;  though  women  and 
children  did  not  come  under  the  obligation,  they  often  went,  like 

(Life  and  Times  of  J.,  I.  230-233),  Hollmann  (The  Jewish  Religion  in  the  Time  of 
Jesus,  10).  Farmer  says,  "at  least  it  is  possible"  (Boyhood,  HDG  I.  233).  The 
view  of  these  writers  seems  to  be  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  Philo  (Ad  Caium  XVI.) 
mentions  "teachers  and  instructors"  as  well  as  "parents"  who  took  part  in  training 
the  Jews  "from  their  very  swaddling  clothes." 

1  Numerous  texts  in  Old  Test.    E.g.  Ex.  xiii.  8;  Deut.  vi.  20. 

2  Ag.  Apion,  II.  18.  He  says  in  same  work,  I.  12:  "Our  principal  care  of  all  is 
this,  to  educate  our  children  well."    Cf.  Philo,  Legatio  ad  Caium,  XVI. 

3  Besides,  Nazareth  was  one  of  the  gathering  places  or  centers  of  priests  of  one 
of  the  twenty-four  courses  whose  duty  it  was  to  be  on  ministry  in  the  Temple.  (Cf . 
Edersheim,  In  the  Days  of  Christ,  36;  also  Cath.  Enc.  art.  Nazareth). 

4  Edersheim,  In  the  Days  of  Christ,  277. 
6  Farmer,  HDG  I.  223. 


76     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Phenenna  and  Anna  (I  Kings  i.  3,  4,  7,  21).  Introducing  the  epi- 
sode of  the  Temple  visit  with  which  we  are  concerned,  St.  Luke 
states,  that  Christ's  "parents  went  every  year  (xa-u*  sto<;),  to 
Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  the  Pasch  (or  Passover)"  (Luke  ii.  41). 
Does  this  imply  that  Mary  and  Joseph  went  only  once  a  year? 
Farmer  rightly  thinks  it  probable  that  "the  emphatic  words  of 
the  sentence  are  oE  yoveTq.  Joseph  may  have  gone  at  other  seasons 
and  Mary  usually  (£xopeuovuo  imperfect  of  'habit')  accompanied 
him."  * 

It  is  not  recorded  that  the  parents  took  the  Child  with  them 
each  year  to  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  but  it  may  be  implied  from 
the  construction  of  the  next  verse,  which  begins  the  account 
of  the  episode,  xal  oti  £y£vsto  £twv  SwBsxa,  dva^atv6vTG)v  .  .  .  (Luke 
ii.  42).  It  would  seem  that  Jesus  went  with  them;  the  fact  that 
He  was  twelve  years  old  —  (the  Evangelist  says  twelve  years  not 
about  twelve)  2  being  mentioned  to  mark  the  time  when  the 
episode  occurred. 

Lightfoot,3  and  after  him  Wetstein4  and  others  represented 
that  the  twelfth  year  is  mentioned  because  then  Christ  "became 
of  age"  in  the  Jewish  sense;  became  a  "son  of  the  Law"  or  "son 
of  the  Commandment"  (HMD  "D),  this  being  His  first  fulfillment  of 
the  law  which  He  was  henceforth  bound  to  observe.  This  view 
seems  very  doubtful  for  the  following  reasons  culled  from  Eder- 
sheim,5  Schurer  6  and  Farmer.7  (1)  We  have  no  evidence  that 
in  the  time  of  Christ  the  term  Bar-Mizvah  was  used  for  a  boy  reach- 
ing his  twelfth  year;  the  term,  although  already  found  in  the 
Talmud  (Aboth  V.  21),  was  not  generally  used  until  the  middle 

1  Art.  Boyhood  HDG  I.  225. 

2  By  stating  the  age  definitely,  Luke  implied  he  is  sure  of  it.  He  states  a  definite 
time,  e.g.,  i.  26,  59;  ii.  21,  36,  37;  iii.  1.  At  other  times  he  used  the  word  "about," 
v.g.  Christ  was  "about  thirty,"  iii.  23;  the  daughter  of  Jairus  was  "about  twelve," 
viii.  42.  Does  St.  Luke's  statement  imply  that  Christ  was  exactly  twelve  years? 
In  reference  to  the  passage,  St.  Jerome  says  that  Christ  had  completed  twelve  years 
(duodecim  annos  Salvator  impleverat,  Letter  to  Paulius,  LIIL,  M.PLXXII.  543). 
Yes,  the  gospel  text  implies  that  Jesus  was  fully  twelve,  yet  if  He  was  twelve  and  a 
few  months  St.  Luke's  words  would  still  be  appropriate.  If  we  could  be  sure  that 
the  Evangelist  meant  that  Christ  was  exactly  twelve,  we  could  know  the  exact 
month  of  Christ's  birth  (Nisan). 

3  Horae  Hebracae,  ad  loc. 

NnV     r|  V*q4-      I  rT*'M*P       i\  ft    I  Of* 

6  In  the  Days  of  Christ,  120;  cf .  Life  and  Times  of  J.,  I.  235-236. 

6  Geschichte  des  jtidischen  Volkes,  II.  496^497,  Transl.  vol.  II.  ser.  II.  51-52. 

7  "Boyhood"  HDG  I.  224,  also  225. 


THE  BACKGROUND  OF  LUKE  ii.  49  77 

ages  for  a  full  grown  Israelite.    (2)   Then  this  later  authority 
assigns  not  twelve  years  but  thirteen  as  the  legal  age.1      (3)    Not 
only  are  there  no  reasons  for  supposing  that  a  child  before  he 
reached  twelve  might  not  be  present  at  the  feast  of  the  Pasch, 
but  we  have  indications  to  the  contrary.2    (4)    Very  likely  it  was 
not  any  definite  age,  but  signs  of  approaching  puberty  that  marked 
the  boundary  line  for  obligation  and  non-obligation.     (5)   The 
current  view  is  based  on  a  very  doubtful  assumption  that,  in  this 
late  Talmudic  rule  concerning  the  "Son  of  the  Law,"  we  find  the 
explanation  for  the  mention  of  Our  Lord's  age.    Now  Luke  ii.  42, 
implies  nothing  as  to  whether  Christ  attended  previous  feasts  or 
not,  and  there  are  other  reasons  for  the  mention  of  the  age,  e.g., 
to  mark  the  time  when  the  episode  occurred.     (6)    Also  the  fact 
that  Christ  remained  behind  on  this  occasion,  "the  parents  not 
knowing  it,"  would  seem  to  imply  that  it  was  not  His  first  Passover; 
if  it  was  His  first,  the  parents  would  be  likely  to  have  made  sure 
He  was  in  the  company  before  setting  out.     (7)    Finally,  the 
silence  of  the  Evangelist,  who  does  not  say  that  the  twelve-year-old 
Christ  went  to  the  feast  to  fulfil  any  law  or  custom.    And  certainly 
the  incident  is  not  mentioned  on  account  of  the  age,  but  the  age 
on  account  of  the  incident. 

But  even  if  this  was  Jesus'  first  attendance  at  the  Passover  in 
Jerusalem,  there  is  another  reason  besides  age  why  it  would  be  so. 
Archelaus,  whom  the  parents  feared  (Matthew  ii.  22),  no  longer 
reigned  in  Judaea;  he  had  been  sent  into  exile  6  a.d.,  which  was 
about  the  twelfth  year  of  Christ's  age,3  and  his  banishment 
ushered  in  a  security  and  safety  obtaining  more  political  and 
social  improvement, —  Roman  law  and  justice  ruling  the  land; 
for  Judaea  with  Samaria  and  Idumaea  were  incorporated  in  the 
Roman  province  of  Syria,  under  its  governor  or  legate  P.  Sulpicius 
Quirinius,  the  immediate  governing  of  Palestine  being  directed  by 
the  Procurator  Coponius.4 

1  Thirteen  and  one  day  is  the  legal  age.  Farmer  (HDG  I.  224)  points  out  that 
when  this  age  was  fixed  the  Rabbis  found  reasons  for  it,  or  rather  for  that  of  twelve. 
Obligations  bound  children  before  their  thirteenth  year;  cf.  Yoma,  82  A.  Besides 
Jewish  authorities  did  not  agree  that  full  responsibility  began  at  thirteen  and  one 
day,  some  holding  that  responsibility  for  sin  against  God  began  later.  Cf.  Feld- 
man,  The  Jewish  Child,  364.  For  the  Bar  Mizvah  Institution,  cf.  Low,  Die  Lebens 
—  alter  in  der  jiidischen  Literatur,  210-217. 

2  Ex.  xii.  3,  4. 

3  Cf.  Dates,  HDG  I.  415,  Chronology,  Cath.  Enc,  Ramsay,  Luke  the  Physician, 
235. 

*  Cf.  Josephus,  Ant.  XVIII.  i.  1. 


78     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

The  Holy  Land  was  ruled  in  this  manner  when  Christ  made 
the  recorded  visit  to  Jerusalem  in  His  twelfth  year;  Augustus 
was  still  Emperor  of  Rome  and  the  office  of  the  High  Priest  was 
filled  by  Annas  of  New  Testament  memory.  Nature  and  season 
were  propitious,1  as  the  Holy  Family  set  out  with  the  "company" 
from  Nazareth  on  their  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem. 

As  the  eighty-mile  journey  (which  took  three  days)  progressed, 
and  they  came  nearer  to  the  Holy  City,  festive  bands  choked  in 
greater  numbers  the  roads,  and  the  more  fervently  arose  the  chant- 
ing of  the  Psalms  of  Ascent  (Ps.  cxix.-cxxiii.),  especially  the  part 
"we  will  go  into  His  tabernacle;  we  will  adore  in  the  place  where 
His  feet  stood.  Arise,  O  Lord,  into  thy  resting  place:  Thou  and 
the  ark,  which  Thou  has  sanctified"  (Ps.  cxxxi.  7,  8).  How  intense 
a  feeling  must  have  been  aroused  in  the  breast  of  an  Israelite, 
especially  if  he  were  a  youth  from  a  country  town,2  when  on  these 
occasions  he  mingled  with  his  fellow  countrymen,  not  only  from 
other  parts  of  Palestine,  but  even  from  distant  countries,  all 
assembled  in  their  great  historical  city  to  worship  the  one  true 
God!  What  aspirations  of  intense  fervor  were  stirred  up  as  he 
entered  the  great  Temple  where  Jahweh's  presence  was  to  a  great 
extent  localized,  as  He  took  part  in  the  beautiful  impressive  services 
of  the  Jewish  feasts,  especially  this  feast  of  Passover,3  when  the 
Paschal  lamb  was  slain  and  offered,  when  the  great  songs  of  praise 
(the  Hallel  Ps.  cxii.  (cxiii.)-cxvii.  and  the  Great  Hallel  cxxxv.)  were 
chanted  by  the  Levites  to  the  response  of  the  whole  people,  and 
when  at  the  question  of  the  youngest  present,  Why  is  this  night 
different  from  other  nights?  the  national  history  of  the  Jews 
was  repeated  and  the  symbols  of  the  feast  explained!  A  feast 
which  commemorated  the  deliverance  and  emancipation  of  the 
nation,  which  acknowledged  God's  special  care  over  His  chosen 
people,  and  whose  ritual  made  so  many  allusions  to  the  Messiah, 
must  have  excited  the  most  intense  feelings  of  patriotism  and 
devotion. 

1  The  Passover  was  held  from  Nisan  15th  to  21st  (March- April). 

2  See  Edersheim's  description  of  the  festive  crowds,  The  Temple,  183,  187,  In 
the  Days  of  Christ,  108-109. 

3  As  to  what  the  Paschal  services  precisely  consisted  of  in  the  time  of  Christ,  one 
must  heed  the  warning  of  Farmer  (HDG  I.  226)  that  they  must  have  been  some- 
what different  from  the  liturgy  of  later  times,  and  also  from  that  of  the  Egyptian 
Passover. 


THE  BACKGROUND  OF  LUKE  ii.  49  79 

As  to  what  were  the  emotions  of  the  twelve-year-old  Boy  from 
Nazareth,  history  is  silent.  Whether  He  and  the  "parents" 
remained  the  entire  seven  days  of  the  feast,  or  left  after  the  second 
day,  is  a  disputed  question.  Luke  simply  writes  "when  they  had 
fulfilled  the  days"  (TeXsioxjavTcov  Tag  wzpaq  Luke  ii.  43). *  But  it  is 
recorded  that  when  the  parents  set  out  for  home,  "the  Boy  Jesus  re- 
mained behind  in  Jerusalem  (uxlpisivsv  'Iiqaou*;  6  xatq),  the  parents 
not  knowing  it."  It  may  have  been  in  the  crowds  at  the  Temple, 
to  which  all  pilgrims  used  to  go  on  the  day  of  departure,  that  the 
"Son"  and  "the  parents"  became  separated.  However  it  hap- 
pened, such  was  the  case,  and  the  "parents"  thinking,  He  was  in 
the  company  and  that  since  He  knew  the  time  and  place  of  depar- 
ture, He  was  perhaps  with  the  younger  folk,  they  went  a  day's 
journey  to  their  first  resting  place.2  Here  they  looked  around  for 
Him  among  their  relatives  and  acquaintances,  and  to  their  great 
grief  they  found  that  He  was  missing.  They  made  a  thorough 
search  for  Him  along  the  road,  all  the  way  back  to  Jerusalem  and 
through  the  Holy  City  (iva^Y]TouvTe<;,  vs.  45).  It  was  only  "after 
three  days"3  that  their  sorrowful  quest  succeeded.  The  place 
where  the  Boy  was  found  was  "in  the  Temple,"  and  He  was 
"sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  Doctors  both  hearing  them  and  asking 
them  questions."  The  word  for  Temple  is  the  generic  term  for 
the  whole  structure  and  leaves  us  in  the  dark  as  to  the  specific 
part  in  which  the  "parents"  and  the  "Son"  met.  An  outward 
part  (porch  or  colonnade)  of  the  Temple  structure  is  rightly  held 

1  Cornelius  a  Lapide,  Lucas,  Jansenius,  Polus,  Lightfoot,  said  the  parents 
remained  the  seven  days  of  the  feast.  On  the  other  hand  Simeon  Metaphrastes 
and  Cajetan  said  they  left  on  the  third  day  of  the  feast.  Edersheim  (Life  and  Times 
of  J.  I.  246-247)  contends  that  it  is  "impossible"  that  on  this  occasion  Mary  and 
Joseph  remained  for  the  whole  feast.  He  bases  his  argument  on  the  fact  that 
Christ  is  found  among  the  Doctors  three  days  after  the  parents'  departure,  and 
according  to  the  Talmud  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  came  out  on  the  terrace  and 
taught  during  feast  days;  hence  the  feast  was  still  going  on.  This  Talmudical 
argument  of  Edersheim  is  not  acceptable  to  Farmer  (HDG  I.  226),  who  says  that 
while  Luke's  words  are  "perhaps  compatible  with  Joseph  and  Mary  having  left 
on  the  third  day,"  he  prefers  "to  think  that  they  'stayed  to  the  end'  of  the  Feast." 

2  Different  places  are  suggested.  See  Farmer,  HDG  I.  226,  Edersheim,  Life  and 
Times  of  J.,  I.  248. 

3  This  probably  is  to  be  considered  from  the  time  of  departure  from  Jerusalem. 
They  had  gone  a  day's  journey,  they  passed  another  day  in  returning  and  after  the 
third  day  they  found  Him.  For  other  ways  of  considering  the  matter,  see  Plummer, 
ad.  loc.  "After  three  days"  may  mean  "on  the  third  day"  as  it  does  in  Mt. 
xxvii.  63;  Mk.  viii.  31;  ix.  31. 


80     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

to  be  the  likely  place.1  It  is  stated 2  that,  on  Sabbath  days  and 
especially  on  feast  days,  the  Doctors  or  great  Rabbis  were  accus- 
tomed to  come  out  upon  a  terrace  of  the  Temple  and  teach  the 
people.  How  popular  were  these  free  instructions  can  easily  be 
realized  when  one  takes  into  account  the  Jewish  reverence  for 
the  Rabbis  and  their  love  and  aptitude  for  speculation  and  dis- 
cussion. As  to  the  personnel  of  the  Doctors  on  this  particular 
occasion  one  can  only  guess,  the  sacred  record  being  silent.3  The 
part  that  Christ  played  will  be  examined  in  a  later  chapter  where 
we  study  the  effect  on  all  those  who  heard  Him  and  on  the  parents 
who  discovered  Him  there. 

Somewhat  recovered  from  the  surprise,  and,  it  would  seem,4 
before  leaving  the  place  where  He  was  found,  and  while  still  in 
the  presence  of  the  astonished  Doctors,  Mary  gave  expression  to 
the  feeling  of  her  heart  in  a  question  to  Jesus,  "Son,  why  hast 
Thou  done  so  to  us?  Behold  Thy  father  and  I  have  sought  Thee 
sorrowing."  The  intense  mental  anguish  experienced  by  both  the 
Virgin  Mother  and  the  foster  father  is  expressed  by  the  strong 
word  6BuvwiJL£voi  (cf.  Luke  xvi.  24,  25),  considered  one  of  the 
Lucan  medical  terms. 

1  Lightfoot  (Horae  Hebr.,  48)  and  Wolf  (Curae  Phil.  et.  Crit.,  594)  held  there 
was  a  synagogue  in  the  Temple  and  the  scene  took  place  there.  This  is  refuted  by 
Edersheim,  Life  and  Times  of  J.,  742-743.  Cf.  Wiinsche  (Neue  Beitrage  .  .  .  aus 
Talmud  und  Midrasch,  419-420),  Hausrath  (Hist,  of  New  Testament  Times,  I. 
90),  Schiirer  (Hist,  of  Jewish  People,  vol.  II.  part  II.  326),  Lesetre  (Le  Temple  de 
Jerusalem,  150). 

2  Cf.  Edersheim,  Life  and  Times  of  J.,  I.  247.  Lagrange  has  a  different  view, 
fivangile  selon  S.  Luc,  ad  loc. 

8  Shammai  was  probably  dead;  the  mild  Hillel  may  have  been  still  alive  (died 
about  10  a.d.),  his  grandson  Gamaliel,  the  teacher  of  St.  Paul  (Ac.  xxii.  3),  must 
have  been  then  flourishing.  Cf.  Coulburn,  Gospel  of  the  Childhood,  105  ff.  Maas, 
A  Day  in  the  Temple,  147. 

4  Some  authors  have  held  that  the  words  of  Mary,  and  consequently  the  answer 
of  Christ,  were  uttered  after  leaving  the  assemblage  of  the  Doctors;  v.g.  Salmeron, 
Maldonatus,  Cornelius  a  Lapide,  Natalis  Alexander.  This  view  is  not  excluded  by 
the  text.  Yet  when  one  reads  vs.  48,  "and  seeing  Him,  they  were  surprised  and  His 
mother  said  to  Him,"  and  after  the  words  vs.  51,  "and  He  went  down  with  them," 
and  when  one  hears  Mary's  formal  expression  "Thy  father  and  I,"  one  receives  the 
impression  that  the  first  words  were  uttered  in  the  presence  of  the  Doctors  and 
bystanders.  The  Apocryphal  Gospels  of  the  Childhood  (Gospel  of  Thomas, 
First  Greek  Form  (XIX.),  Arabic  Gospel  (LIII.))  reflect  this  view,  representing 
the  Doctors  as  afterwards  speaking  to  Mary.  There  is  something  in  the  remark 
of  Ellicott  (Historical  Lectures  96,  note  3)  that  the  emphatic  position  of  irpbs  avrov 
in  verse  48,  would  suggest  that  the  mother  waited  until  they  were  alone  before  she 
spoke,  yet  the  reading  of  this  text  as  a  whole  would  suggest  the  other  view. 


THE  BACKGROUND  OF  LUKE  ii.  49  81 


2.    CONTEMPORARY   JEWISH   CONCEPTION   OF   GOD'S 
RELATION  TO   MAN 

It  would  seem  that  in  Pentateuchal  times  the  Jews  considered 
that  Jahweh  their  God  was  concerned  with  them,  with  their  inter- 
ests, their  success.  Whenever  the  term  "Father"  is  applied  to 
Him,  or  "Sons"  (or  "Son"  or  "Children")  to  them,  the  relation 
expressed  is  always  in  respect  to  the  nation,  never  to  the  indi- 
vidual, and  the  reason  for  this  relation  is  frequently  the  fact  that 
God  begot  them  by  delivering  them  out  of  Egypt.  Thus:  "Israel 
is  My  Son,  My  first-born"  (Ex.  iv.  22);  "Be  ye  children  of  the 
Lord  your  God.  He  chose  thee  to  be  His  peculiar  people  of  all 
nations  that  are  upon  the  earth"  (Deut.  xiv.  1,  2);  "Is  not  He 
thy  Father  that  hath  possessed  thee,  and  made  thee  and  created 
thee?"  (Deut.  xxxii.  5,  6,  18,  19;  cf.  Num.  xxi.  29;  and  "as  a 
Father"  in  Deut.  i.  31;  viii.  5). 

In  the  last  passage  quoted,  fatherly  relation  is  expressed  of 
God  because  He  is  the  Creator.  This  is  also  done  in  passages  of 
subsequent  works,  Is.  xlv.  11;  lxiv.  8;  Malac.  i.  6;  ii.  10,  11;  I 
Paral.  xxix.  10.  In  these  post-Pentateuchal  works  God  is  con- 
sidered in  a  closer  relation  to  the  Hebrew  people,  namely  as  the 
husband,  and  since  God  is  husband  of  the  nation,  individual  Jews 
may  be  called  children  of  God,  —  of  course  in  the  Jewish  idea  of 
husband,  that  is  to  say,  with  strong  emphasis  on  the  duty  of  the 
espoused  Israelites  not  to  prostitute  themselves  in  idolatry. 
Thus:  "And  the  bridegroom  shall  rejoice  over  the  bride,  and  thy 
God  shall  rejoice  over  thee"  (Is.  lxii.  5;  liv.  6);  "But  thou  hast 
polluted  thyself  to  many  lovers;  Return,  Oh  ye  revolting  children, 
saith  the  Lord:  for  I  am  your  husband."  (Jer.  iii.  1,  14,  19,  20,  22; 
ii.  2;  cf.  Oseeii.  2;  19,20;  Ezech.  xvi.  8,  20). 

In  the  same  books  we  have  the  fatherly  relation  predicated  of 
God  in  the  sense  that  He  is  the  Protector  of  Israel.  "I  have 
brought  up  children  and  exalted  them:  but  they  have  despised 
me  ...  A  wicked  seed,  ungracious  children"  (Is.  i.  2,  4;  xxx.  9); 
"Therefore  at  least  from  this  time  call  to  me :  Thou  art  My  Father, 
the  guide  of  my  virginity"  (Jer.  iii.  4;  cf.  Osee  xi.  1,  3).  And  we 
also  find  the  fatherly  relation  coupled  with  the  idea  of  mercy  and 


82     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

pity.1  Thus:  "and  I  will  bring  them  back  in  mercy  for  I  am  a 
father  to  Israel,  and  Ephraim  is  my  first-born"  (Jer.  xxxi.  9,  20; 
cf.  Is.  xliii.  6;  lxiii.  8,  16;  Wisdom  (Father  in  the  sense  of  Provi- 
dence) xiv.  3,  Tob.  xiii.  4  ace.  some  MSS.). 

In  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezechiel  it  is  clearly  taught 
that  Jahweh  is  concerned  not  only  with  the  nation  as  a  whole  but 
also  with  its  individual  members.  In  the  new  covenant  which 
Jeremiah  promises,  as  God  had  written  the  law  on  the  heart  of 
the  prophet,  so  He  was  to  write  it  on  the  heart  of  the  individual 
Israelite  (Jer.  xxxi.  32,  34).  This  individualism  was  developed  by 
Ezechiel:   "All  souls  are  mine"  (Ezech.,  xviii.  4).2 

A  higher  step  was  reached  when  the  fatherly  relation  of  God  was 
predicated  of  the  individual.  The  book  of  Wisdom  says  that  the 
just  man  "boasteth  that  he  hath  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  calleth 
Himself  the  Son  of  God  .  .  .  and  glorieth  that  he  hath  God  for 
His  Father"  (ii.  13,  16;  cf.  ii.  18;  v.  5).  And  the  Son  of  Sirach 
addresses  God  thus:  "Oh  Lord,  Father,  and  sovereign  ruler  of 
my  life,"  "Oh  Lord,  Father  and  God  of  my  life"  (Ecclesiasticus 
xxiii.  1,  4).  The  original  is  not  preserved  but  Dalman  says  that 
xijptexaTspxal  S^axoTa  (vs.  4,  8e£)  ^Gyrjq  jjio  u  is  to  be  traced  to  "OK  ItW 
**V1  i>N1.3  It  is  said  of  this  passage  in  Ecclesiasticus  that  it  "certainly 
witnesses  to  a  real  belief  in  the  Fatherhood  of  God  in  regard  to 
the  individual."  4  These  few  passages  are  the  only  ones  in  the 
canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  where  there  is  an  expression 
of  God's  fatherly  relation  to  the  ordinary  individual. 

In  the  Apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament5  (which  help 
us  to  catch  a  glimpse  of  the  religious  conceptions  of  the  Jews  in 
the  centuries  immediately  preceding  the  advent  of  Christianity)* 
God  is  addressed  as  "Father"  in  3  Mac.  v.  7  (prayer  is  implied); 
vi.  4,  8;  and  the  sense  seems  to  be  the  merciful  loving  God  of  the 

1  And  this  tender  idea  is  also  expressed  in  some  of  the  later  Psalms:  cii.  (ciii.) 
13;  cvi.  (cvii.)  41;  Ixvii.  (lxviii.)  5. 

2  Cf .  Charles,  Religious  Development  between  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 
106-107. 

3  Words  of  J.,  184-185.  Dalman  also  says  concerning  Ii.  14,  nvptov  irarkpa  nvp- 
Lov  nov  that  "the  original  may  have  had  ",J1K1  *3K  HliT  "Jehovah  my  Father  and 
my  Lord"  (p.  185). 

4  Box  and  Oesterley,  in  Introd.  to  Sirach,  in  Apocrypha  and  Pseudepigrapha  of 
Old  Test.,  edit.  Charles  I.  304;  cf.  Toy,  Judaism  and  Christianity,  84. 

5  Texts  are  collected  but  not  well  assorted  by  Wicks:  The  Doctrine  of  God  in 
the  Jewish  Apocryphal  and  Apocalyptical  Literature,  London,  1915. 


THE  BACKGROUND  OF  LUKE  ii.  49  83 

Jews  "fighting  on  their  side  continually  as  a  father  for  his  children" 
(vii.  6).  It  is  said  in  Jubilees  i.  23-25,  that  God  will  be  Father.1 
He  is  referred  to  as  "Father"  in  Test,  of  Levi  xviii.  6;  Test,  of 
Jud.  xxiv.  2;2  and  the  Jews  are  called  "children,"  En.  lxii.  11; 
Ps.  of  Sol.  xvii.  29;  Test,  of  Levi  xviii.  8. 

Thus  a  hasty  survey  of  the  canonical  and  Apocryphal  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  would  seem  to  suggest  that  among  the 
Jews,  there  was  a  development  in  the  revelation  of  God's  relation 
to  man:  from  acknowledging  God's  concern  over  the  nation  as  a 
whole,  they  came  to  recognize  His  interest  in  the  individual,3  and 
from  proclaiming  God's  fatherly  relation  to  His  chosen  people  they 
finally  confessed  His  fatherly  relation  to  the  individual  Israelite.4 

We  have  been  considering  here  only  God's  fatherly  relation 
to  ordinary  individuals.  Divine  Sonship  has  been  attributed  to 
extraordinary  individuals.  Angels  are  called  "Sons  of  God"  in 
Gen.  vi.  L-4;  Job.  i.  6;  ii.  1;  xxxviii.  7;  Ps.  xxviii.  (xxix.)  i.; 
lxxxviii.  (lxxxix.)  7;  (cf.  Septuag.);  and  many  times  in  I  En.  Once 
(Ps.  lxxxi.  (lxxxii.)  1-6,  cf.  John  x.  34)  Judges  are  called  Gods, 
synonymous  with  Sons  of  God  and  implying  investment  with  God's 
power.  Concerning  the  theocratic  king  typifying  the  Messiah, 
it  is  said  in  Ps.  ii.  7,  "Thou  art  My  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee."  And  in  Ps.  lxxxviii.  (lxxxix.)  21,  27,  28,  "I  have  found 
David  my  servant,  He  shall  cry  out  to  Me:  Thou  art  my  Father, 
my  God,  and  the  support  of  my  salvation,  and  I  will  make  him 
my  first  born  high  above  the  kings  of  the  earth."  Again  God  said 
in  reference  to  David,  "I  will  be  to  him  a  Father,  and  he  will  be 
to  Me  a  Son"  (2  K.  vii.  14).  "Son"  is  applied  to  the  Messiah  in 
I  En.  cv.  2;  4  Esd.  vii.  28,  29;  xiii.  32,  37,  52;  xiv.  9. 

A  word  as  to  the  Greeks,  whose  civilization  had  enveloped 
Palestine  at  the  time  of  Christ  and  exerted  an  influence  on  the 
Jews.    In  general  it  may  be  said  that  the  polytheism  of  the  Greeks 

1This  passage  is  remarkable.  It  reads:  "...  I  will  create  in  them  a  holy 
spirit,  .  .  .  and  I  will  be  their  Father  and  they  shall  be  My  children,  and  they  all 
shall  be  called  children  of  the  living  God  and  every  angel  and  every  spirit  shall 
know,  yea,  they  shall  know  that  these  are  My  children  and  that  I  am  their  Father 
in  uprightness  and  righteousness." 

2  Also  in  Sibylline  Books  (of  uncertain  date),  V.  lines  360,  498,  500. 

3  Yet,  as  Dalman  says,  "the  individual  Israelite  was  aware  that  it  was  only  as  a 
member  of  his  people  that  he  possessed  the  claim  to  and  prospect  of  God's  help 
and  patronage."    Words  of  J.,  189. 

4  Cf.  Candlish  (HDB  II.  217),  who  sees  four  successive  stages  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment statements  about  sonship  to  God  as  applied  to  man. 


84     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

led  to  doubt  and  unbelief  rather  than  to  a  conception  of  a  close  or 
personal  relationship  with  God.  In  the  anthropomorphic  theism 
of  Homer,  Zeus,  although  given  preeminence  as  "the  Father  of 
Gods  and  of  Men,"  is  represented  as  having  sons  and  daughters 
among  the  Gods,  as  having  brothers  and  even  as  having  a  father, 
Kronos.  In  the  religious  system  of  the  Greek  poets  of  the  sixth 
and  fifth  centuries  B.C.,  "the  concepts  of  the  Gods  are  essentially 
the  Homeric,  except  that  Zeus  plays  a  larger  part  in  the  divine 
economy  than  in  Homer."  *  Neither  in  the  absolute,  the  "Ideas" 
of  Plato,  nor  in  the  "Mind"  (the  first  cause)  of  Aristotle,  nor  in 
the  polytheistic  pantheism  of  Stoicism,  is  there  to  be  found  any 
conception  of  man's  personal  relationship  with  God. 

One  who  more  than  anybody  else  tried  to  combine  the  Hebrew 
and  Greek  Theosophies,  Philo,  almost  a  contemporary  of  Christ, 
professed  as  his  central  doctrine  (in  which  he  was  influenced  by 
Plato)  the  view  that  God  the  First  Cause  of  all  is  so  transcendent, 
so  widely  separated  from  the  world,  that  He  is  present  in  the  world 
only  in  His  acts  and  that  He  accomplished  creation  through  powers 
or  ideas,  the  chief  being  the  Logos.  In  regard  to  God  as  Father, 
thanks  to  Carmon  (Philo 's  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Father  and  the 
Virgin  Mother  (AJTh  IX  (1905)  491-518))  we  have  his  texts  on  the 
matter  collected  and  assorted.  Philo  uses  the  name  of  "Father" 
for  God  very  freely.  He  uses  it  in  the  sense  of  creator,2  as  is 
seen  from  the  fact  that  he  often  speaks  of  God  as  "the  Father  and 
Creator  "  as  "  the  Father  of  the  universe,  of  the  world,  of  all  things  " ; 
and  based  on  this  sense,  he  uses  the  word  figuratively  (v.g.  Father 
of  generic  virtue).  Indeed,  far  from  holding  there  was  a  close 
relation  between  man  and  God,  Philo  put  God  at  a  distance  from 
the  world  in  his  transcendental  notion  of  Him. 

Before  the  time  of  Christ,  therefore,  the  name  "Father"  had 
been  applied  to  God  by  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  by  the  Jews  in 
mostly  a  national  sense,  by  the  Greeks  in  a  vague  and  mostly 

1  Moore,  Religious  Thought  of  the  Greeks,  75.  For  an  account  of  the  religious 
thought  of  the  Romans  see  Dollinger,  The  Gentile  and  the  Jew,  etc.,  II.  9-6.  Cf. 
also  Dill.  S.  Roman  Society  from  Nero  to  Marcus  Aurelius,  London,  1905.  For 
social  and  religious  conditions  (and  good  bibliography)  see  Angus:  The  Environ- 
ment of  Early  Christianity,  83  ff.  See  p.  99,  for  examples  where  God  is  called 
"Father." 

2  See  especially,  Ad.  Caium,  XVI.  Bibl.  S.  Pat.  Eccl.  Graec.  II.  Phil,  Jud.  Opera 
VI.  98,  where  he  says  that  the  Jews  were  taught  to  believe  "that  there  was  but  one 
God  the  (their)  Father  and  the  Creator  of  the  world." 


THE  BACKGROUND  OF  LUKE  ii.  49  85 

figurative  sense;  but  the  designation  of  God  "My  Father"  is 
not  found  on  the  lips  of  any  ordinary  individual,  unless  perhaps 
in  the  case  of  Ecclesiasticus  xxiv.  1,  4;  and  the  only  other 
reference  to  God's  fatherly  relation  to  the  ordinary  individual 
is  Wisd.  ii.  13,  16.  It  is  indeed  remarkable  that  any  mention 
of  God's  fatherly  relation  to  the  individual  is  almost  absent 
from  the  great  religious  literature  of  the  ancient  Jews,  and 
that  it  is  not  found  in  the  Psalms,  those  outbursts  of  the  intense 
feeling  and  warm  devotion  of  the  Jewish  heart.  In  them  Jahweh 
is  frequently  addressed  as  "My  God,"  xv.  (xvi.),  2;  "My  King," 
v.  3;  "My  Shepherd,"  xxii.  (xxiii.)  1;  yet  we  never  hear  Him 
called  "My  Father."  Outside  the  Messianic  passages  we  do  not 
find  in  the  Psalms  any  reference  to  God's  fatherly  relation  even  to 
the  nation  as  a  whole,  and  we  must  admit  the  inference  of  Green: 
"If  the  religion  of  Israel  had  really  attained  to  any  clear  concep- 
tion of  God  as  Father  and  of  men  as  His  children,  it  would  most 
naturally  find  utterance  in  these  compositions,  in  which  we  have  at 
once  the  devoutest  expression  of  the  personal  religious  consciousness 
and  the  chosen  vehicle  of  the  worship  of  the  congregation."  * 

Not  only  is  the  term  "Father"  comparatively  rarely  used  of 
God  by  the  Jews  before  the  time  of  Christ  but,  as  Dalman  says, 
"The  Targums  show  that  great  care  was  exercised  against  the  sin- 
gle use  of  the  word  father,  for  God."  2  The  examples  which  Dal- 
man brings  forward  show  that  the  word  "Father"  was  avoided 
and  even  "My  Father"  Oatf)  was  changed  into  "My  Lord"  (^mi). 

Instances  of  "Our  Father"  in  Jewish  prayers  are  given  by 
Dalman  (the  earliest  is  118  a.d.),3  but  in  Jewish  parlance  the 
usual  designation  of  God  was  "Our  Father  in  heaven,"  "the  dicta 
of  the  Rabbis  from  the  end  of  the  first  Christian  century  onwards 
are  the  earliest  source  of  instances."  4  Dalman  gives  instances 
from  this  time  on  showing  the  conception  of  the  fatherly  relation 
of  God  to  the  individual  Israelite.     But  as  Beyschlag  remarks, 

1 HDB  Extra  Vol.  125. 

2  Words  of  J.,  191.  When  Jesus  simply  said,  "My  Father  worketh  until  now; 
and  I  work"  (Jn.  v.  17),  St.  John  in  the  next  verse  tells  us  that  the  Jews  therefore 
"sought  the  more  to  kill  Him,  because  He  did  not  only  break  the  Sabbath  but  also 
said  God  was  His  Father,  making  Himself  equal  to  God."  Could  we  infer  from  this 
that  the  expression  "My  Father"  applied  to  God  would  be  blasphemous  in  their 

•  Op.  cit.,  190-191. 
«  Op._cit.,  186. 


86     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

"it  may  be  asked  whether  its  origin  in  these  is  not  due  —  as  so 
many  old  Rabbinic  sayings  suggest  —  solely  to  the  desire  not  to 
lag  behind  Christian  ideas  and  modes  of  expression."  1 

The  Targums  (which  throw  light  on  theological  views  of  con- 
temporaries of  Christ)  not  only  show  a  dislike  for  the  name  Father 
applied  to  God,  but  give  other  evidence  of  a  widespread  tendency 
to  exaggerate  God's  transcendence.  Widening  the  chasm  between 
God  and  the  world,  the  Targums  remove  or  paraphrase  away  the 
anthropomorphisms  of  the  Old  Testament;  thus  the  creation  of 
man  in  the  likeness  of  God  is  changed  into  his  creation  in  the  like- 
ness of  the  ministering  angels.2  Changes  and  paraphrases  of  a 
like  nature  are  found  even  in  the  Septuagint  (third  century  b.c.).3 
As  Fairweather  says  in  the  post-exilic  period  "there  was  developed 
a  tendency  to  conceive  God  as  dwelling  in  the  distant  heaven  as 
'afar  off'  and  remote  from  the  life  of  men."  4  A  strongly  marked 
evidence  of  it  is  seen  in  names  applied  to  God  in  quite  general  use. 
Many  kinds  of  evasive  and  precautionary  ways  were  taken  not  to 
refer  to  the  name  of  God  or  to  mention  His  Person.  He  was  re- 
ferred to  as  "most  High,"  as  "Heaven,"  as  "Place,"  etc.5 

Yet  side  by  side  with  this  abstract  and  transcendental  view  of 
God  and  inconsistently  with  it,  there  was  another  great  charac- 
teristic of  Jewish  theology  contemporary  with  Christ,  namely 
the  autocracy  of  the  Law.  The  Law  was  exalted  at  the  expense  of 
everything  else,  even  to  the  extent  of  drying  up  spiritual  energies, 
of  lowering  spiritual  ideas,  of  limiting  religion  to  the  traditional 
interpretation  of  the  law,  and  of  making  God  Himself  subject  to 
the  Law.6     At  the  time  of  Christ,  then,  there  existed  a  tendency 

1  New  Test.  Th.  I.  80,  note  2.  This  view  is  also  taken  by  Bousset.  Die  Religion 
des  Judenthums  in  ntl.  Zeitalter,  357. 

2  Many  other  examples  are  given  by  Sanday,  who  has  a  very  good  treatment 
of  the  "Tendencies  of  Contemporary  Judaism"  (HDB  II.  203-208). 

8  For  examples  see  Sanday,  HDB  II.  206-207;  cf .  Fairweather,  Development  of 
Doctrine,  HDB  Extra  Vol.  279,  also  Background  of  the  Gospel,  330,  Gilbert,  HDG 
I.  582. 

4  The  Background  of  the  Gospel,  208;  cf.  Maclean  (HDG  Sing.  Vol.  X,  301), 
Gilbert  (HDG  I.  582). 

«  Cf.  Dalman,  Words  of  J.,  194-232.  Sanday,  op.  cit.,  HDB  II.  206,  Fair- 
weather,  op.  cit.,  281. 

6  He  was  even  represented  as  studying  the  Law,  cf.  Sanday,  HDB  II.  208, 
Oesterley,  Judaism  in  the  Days  of  the  C.,  87  S.  After  mentioning  tjie  evils  of  this 
Jewish  worship  of  the  Law,  this  writer  (p.  94)  says  that  one  should  not  "overstate 
their  prevalence."  And  Herford  contends  that  the  exaltation  of  the  Torah  on  the 
contrary  deepened  the  spiritual  life  of  the  ordinary  Jew  (Pharisaism,  72). 


THE  BACKGROUND  OF  LUKE  ii.  49  87 

to  put  God  further  and  further  away  from  earthly  things,  to  con- 
sider Him  as  transcending  them  to  make  Him  to  a  certain  extent 
uninteresting,  unlovable.1 

Summing  up,  then,  and  reviewing  all  our  evidence  for  the 
Jewish  conception  of  God  at  the  time  of  Christ,  we  should  think 
that  the  prevailing  view  was  the  transcendental  one  of  the  Scribes 
and  Pharisees.  Yet,  as  we  indicated  above,  there  seemed  to  be 
a  development  and  elevation  of  the  notion  of  God's  fatherly  rela- 
tionship through  the  centuries,  until  at  a  time,  not  many  centuries 
distant  from  the  Christian  era,  God's  fatherly  relation  to  the  in- 
dividual was  predicated.  This  was  done  only  a  few  times;  yet 
there  seems  to  be  justice  in  the  remark  of  Toy  that  "the  conception 
of  God's  fatherly  relation  to  individuals  existed  therefore  a  couple 
of  hundred  years  before  the  beginning  of  our  era,  and  we  may 
suppose  that  it  gathered  force  and  fulness  as  the  increasing  purity 
and  elevation  of  ethical  ideas  was  transferred  to  the  divine  charac- 
ter. Still  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  a  favorite  conception; 
the  Jewish  national  feeling  was  strong  enough  to  depress  it.  It 
was  probably  held  by  a  select  circle  of  thinkers,  but  it  was  kept 
out  of  general  view  by  the  circumstances  of  the  time,  the  political 
excitements  and  the  religious-ethical  tendencies  thence  resulting."  2 
It  was,  then,  only  within  "a  select  circle  of  thinkers"  that  God's 
close,  warm,  fatherly  relation  to  the  individual  could  be  preserved 
amid  prevailing  views  of  Judaism  relegating  God  to  the  distance, 
making  Him  subservient  to  the  Law. 

1When  the  Pharisees  answered  Christ:  "We  are  not  born  of  fornication:  we 
have  one  Father,  even  God,"  Jn.  viii.  41,  they  employed  the  name  Father  for  God 
in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  frequently  found  in  the  Old  Testament:  God  was  Father 
of  the  Jews  because  they  were  children  of  a  nation  espoused  to  God.  Cf.  Mtt.  xv. 
26;  Mk.  vii.  27. 

2  Judaism  and  Christianity,  84;  cf.  Green,  Children  of  God,  HDB  Sing.  Vol.  125. 


SECTION  IV 

CHRIST'S  CONSCIOUSNESS  AS  EXPRESSED 
IN  LUKE  ii.  49 


CHAPTER  IX 

REAL  DIVINE  SONSHIP  EXPRESSED   IN  THE  FIRST 
RECORDED  WORDS 

1.    THE   STUDY   OF  THE   WORDS   "MY  FATHER " 

In  Christ's  first  recorded  saying:  "Why  did  you  seek  Me? 
Did  you  not  know  that  in  the  (things)  of  My  Father  I  must  be? 
(T(  oti  ^tqtscts  tie;  oux  -pette  8xt  e\  xolq  tou  IIaTp6<;  {jlou  Bet  ehat  \ie; 
Luke  ii.  49),  the  words  that  express  His  relationship  to  God  are 
"My  Father."  In  this  expression  we  immediately  strike  the  core 
of  the  problem  we  have  in  hand,  we  meet  the  whole  issue  and  have 
to  decide  it  before  going  further.  What  will  remain  to  be  done, 
will  be  only  to  reinforce  the  main  argument  outlined  here. 

(a)  From  the  evidence  brought  forward  in  the  previous  chapter 
one  can  safely  conclude  that  at  the  time  of  Christ,  the  title  of 
"Father"  was  used  of  God.  The  usual  way  of  referring  to  Him, 
would  seem  to  have  been  "Our  Father  in  heaven,"  which  had 
gradually  been  adopted  for  the  then  obsolete  tetragramaton.  But, 
for  an  individual  to  call  God  His  Father  was  not  at  all  popular, 
as  very  few  instances  are  to  be  found  previous  to  the  time  of  Our 
Lord,  and  the  prevailing  conception  of  God  was  against  it.  So 
that  we  straightway  see  that  Christ's  expression  tou  n<rup6<;  (xou, 
"My  Father"  for  God  was  not  the  ordinary  one. 

In  making  this  departure,  there  were  no  great  precedents  for 
Christ  to  follow.  Samuel,  "the  faithful  prophet  of  the  Lord" 
(1  Kings  iii.  20),  as  a  boy  referred  to  God  as  "Lord,"  and  called 
himself  "servant,"  1  Kings  iii.  10.  Although  God  told  David 
through  the  Prophet  Nathan  that  He  would  be  a  Father  to  him, 
and  David  would  be  to  Him  a  son,  yet  David  too  cries  "O  Lord 
God"  and  refers  to  himself  as  "servant,"  2  Kings  vii.  18,  19,  25, 
etc.  In  prophecy  the  great  Jewish  mediator  and  saviour  of  the 
Gentiles  is  called  by  Isaias,   "My  servant,"  Isaias  xlii.   1   ff. 

91 


92     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

According  to  St.  Luke  himself,  priestly  Zachary  refers  to  God  as 
"the  Lord  God  of  Israel,"  Luke  i.  68;  and  pious  Simeon  views 
his  relation  to  God  as  a  "slave"  to  a  "master"  vuv  chuoMeig  tov 
SouXov  sou,  BiaiuoToc,  Luke  ii.  29. 

Certainly  it  was  not  on  account  of  precedents,  or  by  virtue  of 
custom  and  usage  that  "My  Father"  fell  from  Christ's  lips.  If,  in 
referring  to  God,  He  had  used  "Our  Father  in  Heaven"  which 
according  to  Dalman  seems  to  have  been  used  by  the  Jews  of  that 
time,  He  might  be  following  usage  and  custom  of  the  time,  but 
when  instead  of  "Our"  He  used  "My,"  Christ  did  something  out 
of  the  ordinary;  not  only  have  we  but  few  examples  of  an  indi- 
vidual expressing  filial  relation  to  God,  but  the  Targums  (as 
referred  to  in  the  previous  chapter)  show  an  aversion  to  the  use 
of  the  words  "My  Father"  in  reference  to  God;  and  there  is  an 
evident  indication  of  a  prevailing  view  of  God  which  is  abstract 
and  diametrically  opposed  to  the  close  warm  conception  of  Him  as 
expressed  by  the  words  "My  Father."  When  we  see  that  this 
expression  making  this  departure  is  used,  not  by  a  man  of  mature 
years,  not  after  years  of  pious  reflection  and  religious  experience, 
but  by  a  boy  of  twelve  it  would  seem  to  be  very  exceptional.  And 
when  we  see  that  the  expression  was  uttered  in  all  seriousness 
(as  the  whole  context  presupposes),  it  would  seem  hard  to  explain. 

(b)  The  words,  "My  Father,"  on  the  lips  of  the  twelve-year- 
old  Jesus  are  not  only  the  most  important  ones  of  His  saying,  but 
they  are  the  most  emphatic  ones,  because  with  these  words  He 
made  a  contrast  with  the  words,  "Thy  Father,"  in  the  question 
of  Mary  His  Mother.  She  said  "...  Thy  father  and  I  sought 
Thee  sorrowing";  He  said  ".  .  .  in  the  (things)  of  My  Father 
I  must  be."  The  contrast  between  "My  Father"  and  "Thy 
Father"  is  evident,  and  it  is  admitted  by  all  scholars  with  the 
exception  of  two,  H.  Holtzmann1  and  Meyer,2  both  of  whom  base 
their  opposition  to  it  on  the  ground  that  it  would  be  unnatural, 
which  is  an  a  priori  reason. 

To  Mary's  reference  to  Joseph  as  father,  Jesus  opposes  a 
reference  to  God  as  His  Father.  The  opposition  or  contrast  is 
equivalent  to  a  decisive  correction  of  Mary's  words,  it  is  tanta- 

1  Hand  Comment.  I.  51. 

2  Gospel  of  Mk.  and  Lk.  i.  336. 


REAL  DIVINE  SONSHIP  EXPRESSED  93 

mount  to  a  denial  that  Joseph  was  His  father,  and,  what  is  of 
special  importance,  it  is  a  reminder  of  the  Virgin  Birth.  According 
to  the  Lucan  account  Jesus  had  been  miraculously  conceived  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  was,  so  to  speak,  a  physical  reason  why  the 
"Holy  One  born"  of  the  Virgin  Mary  would  be  "the  Son  of  God" 
(Luke  i.  35) .  By  the  words  " My  Father "  as  a  designation  of  God, 
in  opposition  to  the  imputation  of  fatherhood  on  the  part  of 
Joseph,  the  Boy  Christ  shows  that  He  was  conscious  of  His  miracu- 
lous conception  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  indicates  that  these  words, 
"My  Father"  are  to  be  understood  in  accordance  with  this  super- 
natural conception.  This  contrast,  therefore,  points  to  the  view 
of  real  Divine  Sonship.  "In  place  of  the  foster  father,"  says  Titus 
of  Bostra,1  "He  brings  forward  the  true  Father,"  or  as  Theophyl- 
act2  interprets  the  contrast,  "since  Mary  had  called  Joseph 
'father.'  He  replied  'he  is  not  My  true  father  otherwise  I  would 
be  in  his  house,  but  God  is  My  Father  and  for  this  reason  I  am  in 
His  house  that  is  in  His  temple.'  " 

(c)  The  occasion  of  the  twelfth  year  was  not  the  sole  time  that 
Jesus  used  the  expression  "My  Father"  in  reference  to  God.  He 
did  it  frequently  during  His  Public  Life.  Not  being  an  isolated 
instance,  we  can  determine  that  it  was  not  by  accident  that  He 
uttered  it  in  His  twelfth  year.  In  Christ's  later  life  no  other  name 
of  God  was  more  frequently  on  His  lips  than  that  of  "Father." 
And  nowhere  does  Our  Lord's  teaching  appear  in  sharper  contrast 
to  current  religious  ideas  than  in  relation  to  the  Divine  Fatherhood. 
To  avoid  repetition  we  have  reserved  the  study  of  Christ's  refer- 
ences to  God's  Fatherhood  to  a  closing  chapter  (page  188).  We 
now  refer  the  reader  to  it,  and  we  here  avail  ourselves  of  the 
results.  We  can  determine  this  certainly  from  His  later  usage, 
that  His  departing  from  the  usual  way  of  referring  to  God  was 
deliberate  and  intentional.  Indeed,  He  told  all  others,  even  His 
disciples  to  say  "Our  Father,"  yet  He  deliberately  made  a  depar- 
ture when  He  Himself  was  concerned,  using  "My  Father."  As 
Dalman  remarks,  "Jesus  never  applied  to  Himself  the  title  'Son 
of    God'  and  yet  made  it  indubitably  clear  that  He  was  not 

1  Titus  von  Bostra  (ed.  Sickenberger),  152. 

8  M.PG  CXXIII.  733.    Cf.  Stanley  Hall,  Jesus  the  Christ  in  the  Light  of  Psy- 
chology I.  430,  etc. 


94     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

merely  V  but  'the'  Son  of  God.  The  position  assumed  shows 
itself  in  the  preference  He  manifested  for  the  designation  of  God 
as  'His'  Father  in  the  use  of  which  He  never  includes  the  disciples 
along  with  Himself .  .  .  The  unique  position  assumed  by  Jesus 
also  follows  in  other  passages  from  the  invariable  separation  be- 
tween 'My  Father'  and  'Your  Father/  "  1 

A  unique  or  special  Divine  Sonship  is  signified  by  the  use  of 
the  term  "My  Father"  certainly  in  the  evangelical  narrative  of 
the  Public  Life,  this  nobody  can  deny.  Now,  when  we  hear  this 
expression  fall  from  the  lips  of  Jesus  for  the  first  time,  and  this 
when  only  twelve  years  of  age,  what  are  we  to  think?  The  sacred 
historian  who  records  this  here  without  explanation  or  comment  in 
the  same  work  wherein  he  represents  Christ  as  using  "My  Father" 
to  distinguish  His  Sonship  from  even  His  disciples,  would  certainly 
seem  to  attribute  to  the  youthful  Saviour  a  consciousness  of  a  special 
Divine  Sonship.  To  contend  that  it  is  not  allowed  to  argue  this 
way,  that  the  "childishness"  of  the  twelve-year-old  Christ  forbids 
the  taking  any  great  or  deep  meaning  from  His  words,  to  contend 
this  is  to  argue  a  priori,  is  to  argue  independently  of  the  records.2 

1  Words  of  Jesus,  280-281. 

2  A  number  of  modern  writers  appeal  to  the  "childishness"  of  the  saying  in 
favor  of  their  view.  Hase  does  this  (Geschichte  Jesu,  224).  A  "childish  limita- 
tion" is  mentioned  by  Keim  (Jesus  of  Naz.,  II.  133).  Lange  refers  to  the  saying  as 
a  "feeling  still  enveloped  in  the  bud  of  childishness"  (Life  of  Christ,  324).  Reville 
sees  in  the  Gospel  episode  "beaucoup  de  candeur  et  d'illusion  juvenile"  (Jesus  de 
Naz.,  410).  Neander  holds  that  Christ's  words  "contain  no  explanation  beyond 
His  tender  years"  (Life  of  Christ,  31).  According  to  Dickenson  (The  Perfecting  of 
Jesus,  AndRXLII  (1912)  278)  the  childishness  of  His  answer  "forbids  us  to  inter- 
pret the  words,  '  My  Father,'  in  any  other  but  a  purely  human  sense  of  Sonship  to 
the  Father  .  .  ."  To  do  so,  says  Barth,  would  be  "roh  und  unkindlich"  (Die 
Hauptprobleme  des  Lebens  J.,  270),  etc.  In  answer  we  say  in  the  first  place  that 
an  oriental  boy  of  12  is  not  a  child.  In  any  case  there  are  no  indications  in  the  Gos- 
pel that  Lk.  ii.  49  is  to  be  considered  a  childish  saying.  For  the  parents,  it  was  no 
childish  saying;  it  contained  something  so  great  and  deep  that  they  could  not 
understand  it  (vs.  50),  it  contained  something  of  such  value  that  the  Mother  care- 
fully preserved  it  (vs.  51).  As  we  shall  later  see,  the  Evangelist  previously  narrates 
that  the  Boy  Jesus  displayed  most  extraordinary  understanding  (vs.  47)  and  that 
as  a  child  He  was  filled  with  wisdom  (vs.  40).  He  had  previously  described  Christ's 
miraculous  conception  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  miracles  that  attended  His  birth. 
This  context,  and  besides  the  same  serious  tone  that  attends  all  the  narrative  of  this 
Third  Gospel  —  these  are  sufficient  indications  that  the  words  may  be  taken  for 
all  they  stand  for,  that  one  may  adopt  the  interpretation  that  best  suits.  Finally, 
is  not  the  distance  between  child  and  man  lost  in  the  interval  that  separates  both 
from  the  Deity?  And  if  a  child's  consciousness  could  not  contain  a  divine  meta- 
physical element,  neither  could  a  man's  (cf.  Owen,  Comment  on  Gospel  of  St.  Lk. 
44).  The  claiming  that  the  childishness  of  Jesus'  saying  precludes  any  great  or 
deep  meaning  is  an  a  priori  argumentation. 


REAL  DIVINE  SONSHIP  EXPRESSED  95 

This  special  Divine  Sonship  in  the  first  words  of  Jesus  is 
admitted  by  Keim,  Godet,  Nosgen,  Reville,  Beyschlag,  Wendt  and 
other  such  scholars.1  These  men  admit  that  in  Jesus*  first  saying 
"the  words  'My  Father'  were  the  first  realization  of  a  relation 
which  surpassed  all  that  Judaism  had  realized,"  to  quote  Godet,2 
or  to  quote  Beyschlag,3  "the  name  of  'Father'  on  the  lips  of  Jesus 
is  the  expression  of  a  purely  personal  relation  that  has  no  equal." 
Yes,  these  admissions  are  required  by  the  historical  evidence,  but 
how  explain  them  naturally?  "From  what,"  we  have  to  ask  with 
H.  Schmidt,4  "is  Christ's  consciousness  of  His  peculiar  quality?" 
Even  if  one  agree  with  these  men  that  the  special  Sonship  ex- 
pressed by  the  youthful  Christ  is  only  ethical,  we  would  look  in 
vain  for  a  natural  explanation.  Special  ethical  Sonship,  or  the 
conviction  of  an  ethical  relation  above  all  others,  might  be  arrived 
at  by  a  person  who  had  spent  many  years  of  prayer  and  missionary 
experience,  namely  after  knowing  the  spiritual  experiences  of 
others  and  comparing  them  with  one's  own.  A  special  ethical 
relation  must  necessarily  be  the  result  or  fruit  of  growth  and  devel- 
opment in  the  mental  and  moral  faculty  of  man,  and  according  to 
the  laws  of  Psychology  it  would  be  difficult  to  explain  how  the 
consciousness  of  a  relation  to  God  more  special  than  that  of  any- 
body else  would  be  found  in  a  boy  of  twelve.  No  amount  of  natural 
precociousness,  no  natural  ingenuity,  no  depth  or  strength  of 
religious  feeling  could  explain  it;  he  must  necessarily  lack  expe- 
rience or  the  knowledge  of  how  others  view  their  relation  to  God. 
The  unnaturalness  of  the  natural  explanation  is  confirmed  by  this 
fact,  that  both  J.  Weiss  and  O.  Pfleiderer,  while  admitting  that  the 
text  as  it  stands  signifies  special  Divine  Sonship,  on  this  account 
reject  it  as  not  genuine.5 

The  conviction  of  a  most  special  relation  to  God  is  expressed 
by  Jesus  in  the  words  "My  Father,"  and  this  conviction  at  such 
a  tender  age  would  indicate  that  for  Him  development  was  pre- 
cluded, the  ordinary  laws  of  humanity  were  not  observed,  a  preter- 
natural explanation  was  to  be  looked  for. 

1  The  modern  scholars  who  hold  to  a  special  ethical  Sonship  are  given  above,  pp. 
41  ff. 

2  Comment,  on  Luke,  93. 
8  New  Test.  Th.  I.  81. 

4  Bildung  und  Gehalt  d.  messianisch.  Bewusstsein  J.  StKr  LXII  (1889)  428. 
6  See  above,  p.  41. 


96     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

(d)  Not  being  able  naturally  to  account  for  the  words  "My 
Father"  in  the  first  recorded  saying  of  Jesus,  we  are  compelled  to 
seek  an  adequate  explanation  somewhere  even  if  it  should  be  in  the 
realms  of  the  supernatural.  An  adequate  explanation  is  readily 
and  as  it  were  naturally  suggested  to  us  by  the  usage  of  this  self- 
same expression,  "My  Father,"  by  Christ  during  the  Public  Minis- 
try. 

According  to  the  representation  of  the  Evangelist,  not  only 
unique  but  even  real  Divine  Sonship  is  signified  by  Christ  when  He 
uses  the  term  "Father"  or  "My  Father."  For  instance:  All 
things  are  delivered  to  Me  by  My  Father;  and  no  one  knoweth 
who  the  Son  is,  but  the  Father;  and  who  the  Father  is,  but  the 
Son  and  to  whom  the  Son  will  reveal  Him  (Luke  x.  22).  Certainly 
real  Divine  Sonship  is  expressed  here,  for  Christ  indirectly  states 
that  His  nature  is  such  that  it  could  be  known  only  by  God  the 
Father,  which  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  He  had  Divine  Nature.1 
We  refer  the  reader  to  the  last  section  of  this  work,  where  is 
adduced  accumulative  evidence  to  show  how  the  Saviour  of  the 
Public  Life  understood  His  Divine  Sonship,  to  show  that  His  use 
of  the  expression  "My  Father"  corresponds  to  the  expressions 
"the  only  Son,"  "the  only  begotten  Son,"  to  show  that  this  ex- 
pression "My  Father"  on  His  lips  is  fraught  with  the  significance 
of  metaphysical  relation  to  God,  —  this  is  according  to  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  Third  Evangelist  and  the  whole  New  Testament 
(pages   188   sq.). 

In  the  light  of  this  meaning,  how  is  tou  IIaTp6<;  (jlou  in  the  say- 
ing of  the  twelve-year-old  Christ  to  be  interpreted?  We  ask  with 
Fillion 2  why  not  attribute  to  the  word  "Father"  here  the  signifi- 
cance it  so  often  receives  in  the  course  of  the  Gospel  narratives? 
This  should  be  done,  if  the  canon  is  observed  that  an  obscure 
passage  is  to  be  explained  by  a  clear  one.  Would  it  not  be  a  mis- 
take to  extract  it  from  the  book  in  which  it  is  written  and  consider 
it  apart  from  the  representation  of  the  writer?  According  to 
ordinary  methods,  it  is  not  allowed  to  do  so  unless  we  have  a 
statement  to  the  effect  from  the  Evangelist.    Where  is  there  even 

1  This  is  admitted  by  a  member  of  the  negative  school.    See  a  work  on  this 
passage  by  Schumacher.    Die  Selbstoffenbarung  Jesu  beik  Mat.  xi.  27  (Luc.  x.  22). 

2  Le  developpement  intell.  et.  moral  de  Jesus  RClfr  April  (1914)  16.     Cf.  Felder, 
Jesus  Christus,  I.  328. 


REAL  DIVINE  SONSHIP  EXPRESSED  97 

an  intimation  of  this?  By  not  informing  us  on  the  matter  Luke 
would  be  deceiving  us  if  the  term  has  not  the  same  meaning  in 
the  second  as  in  any  later  chapter.  Since  there  is  no  warrant 
whatsoever  for  saying  that  the  title  used  of  God,  "My  Father," 
changed  in  meaning  for  Jesus,  and  since  He  expressed  real  Divine 
Sonship  in  other  passages  where  this  title  is  used,  would  not  one 
naturally  expect  that  real  Divine  Sonship  is  likewise  expressed  in 
ii.  49? 

The  words  "My  Father"  were  Christ's  most  common  name 
for  God  and  hence  did  not  drop  accidentally  from  the  lips  of  the 
youthful  Saviour.  Although  a  Jew  of  Christ's  time,  especially  if 
he  belonged  to  a  select  class,  might  speak  of  God  as  his  Father  — 
this  is  true,  despite  a  few  authorities  to  the  contrary  l  —  yet  Jesus' 
employment  of  the  title  for  God  was  something  quite  characteris- 
tic of  Him  alone.  He  even  went  beyond  the  usage  in  reference  to 
the  theocratic  king.  Not  only  did  He  make  use  of  the  name  "My 
Father"  more  frequently  and  in  a  more  confident  manner  than 
was  ever  previously  done,2  but  the  way  He  reserved  it  for  Him- 
self alone,  and  the  content  He  gave  it  surpass  anything  of  the 
sort  that  we  know  of  any  historical  personage.  Seeing  that 
Jesus  at  the  tender  age  of  twelve  does  not  say  "Our  Father,"  but 
deliberately  uses  "My  Father,"  appropriating  God  as  His  own 
special  Father,  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  draws  this  inference:  He 
makes  God  His  own  Father,  for  He  alone  was  divinely  born  of 
God  according  to  nature,  and  when  He  became  man  He  retained 
His  own  true  (by  nature)  Father,  God.3  This  is  our  conclusion: 
The  use  of  the  term  "My  Father"  for  God  was  not  at  all  ordi- 
nary; from  the  contrast  with  the  words  "Thy  Father"  recalling 
the  Virgin  Birth,  and  from  His  usage,  of  which  this  is  only  one 
instance,  we  are  led  to  expect  that  the  term  was  fraught  with  the 
meaning  of  real  Divine  Sonship. 

!A  few  have  said  that  Christ's  words  "My  Father"  were  altogether  foreign 
to  the  ordinary  Jewish  dialect  of  His  time,  v.g.  Sheldon'  New  Test.  Theol.  63, 
Stier  (Words  of  the  Lord  J.,  25),  Brough  (Childhood  and  Youth  of  Our  Lord,  124). 
These'writers  are  not  precisely  correct,  as  is  indicated  in  the  last  chapter. 

2  Cf/Hollmann,  "But  apart  from  the  fact  that  use  of  this  name  in  Jewish  litera- 
ture is  not  very  frequent,  the  glad  confident  child-like  feeling  which  the  name  of 
Father  on  the  lips  of  Jesus  implied  is  nowhere  to  be  found."  The  Jewish  Religion 
in  the  time  of  J.,  51.  Furrer  writes:  Mit  seinem  Sohnsbewusstsein  steht  Jesus  ganz 
einzig  da  in  seiner  Zeit,  in  seiner  Welt  (Das  Leben  J.  C,  55). 

3  M.PG  LXXVI.  1320. 


98     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

2.    THE   OTHER   WORDS   OF   THE   TEXT 

(A)  In  Jesus'  first  recorded  saying:  T£  8ti  itjjrttxt  \ls;  oi3x  {Beits 
8xt  £v  toi?  tou  IIaTp6<;  (jlou  Set  elva(  (xe;  the  last  word  is  yie.  Christ 
does  not  say  that  man  must  be  in  the  things  of  His  Father,  like 
the  answer  He  returned  to  the  tempter,  "Man  liveth  not  by  bread 
alone,"  Luke  iv.  4;  no,  He  does  not  use  an  indefinite  pronoun, 
but  mentions  Himself  alone.  The  \ie  by  being  placed  last  is  em- 
phasized as  has  been  remarked  by  Doderlein.1  This  little  word 
appears  twice;  what  is  asserted  in  the  saying  is  centered  in  Him; 
there  is  no  mistaking  that. 

(B)  Eivaf  iv  toI<;  tou.  In  another  place  I  have  discussed  the 
question:  what  is  to  be  understood  by  £v  Totq,  and  although  to 
some  extent  favoring  there  the  view  of  "business"  as  against 
that  of  "house,"  I  shall  here  leave  the  question  open. 

(a)  If  "business"  be  taken  as  the  meaning,  then  Christ  says 
that  He  must  be  in  the  business  of  His  Father.  "To  be  in,"  etvat  iv, 
would  signify  "to  be  completely  taken  up  with,"  2  as  in  the  case 
of  1  Tim.  iv.  15,  &v  toijtok;  YaGt,  which  the  Revised  translates, 
"give  thyself  wholly  to  them."3  Mary  had  asked:  Why  did 
you  do  this  to  us?  Making  a  slight  contrast,  the  Son  replied,  not 
that  He  must  do  the  business  but  that  He  must  be  completely 
taken  up  with,  immersed  in  the  affairs  of  His  Father.  To  explain 
this  assertion  as  merely  the  outcome  of  intense  religious  feeling 
requires  attributing  a  certain  amount  of  unnaturalness  to  the 
twelve-year-old  Christ  as  well  as  arguing  independently  of  the 
text  and  context  (as  will  be  shown).  On  the  other  hand,  accord- 
ing to  the  view  that  takes  "My  Father"  in  the  literal  sense,  this 
expression  is  most  fitting  and  natural  for  the  Boy  Jesus.  The 
right  and  duty  of  a  true  son  is  to  be  taken  up  with  his  Father's 
business. 

(6)  What  is  the  meaning,  in  the  view  that  "house"  is  to  be 
understood  for  £v  toi<;  tou?  In  the  first  place,  be  it  noticed  that 
in  Jewish  usage  the  Temple  was  not  called  "the  Father's  house"; 
there  is  not  a  single  instance  either  in  the  canonical  or  apocryphal 

1  NJdTH  I  (1892)  617. 

1  As  has  been  remarked  by  Pricaeus  (in  Biblia  Critica,  ad  loc.)  and  also  by  Stier 
(Words  of  the  Lord  J.,  23). 

8  Cf.  a  similar  use  in  Rom.  xii.  7  (where  elvtu  is  omitted)  and  in  Philip  iv.  11. 


REAL  DIVINE  SONSHIP  EXPRESSED  99 

works  of  the  Old  Testament.  By  David,  by  Solomon,  in  the 
Psalms  and  even  in  the  Psalms  of  Ascent,  the  Temple  is  desig- 
nated as  "the  house  of  the  Lord."  Not  only  this  departure,  but 
the  Boy  Christ,  using  the  plural  article,  not  even  using  the  word 
"house,"  refers  to  the  Temple  as  His  Father's  house  in  a  very 
familiar  manner,  Iv  to!<;  tou  IIaTp6<;  [kou.  The  Temple  of  Jerusa- 
lem was  the  center  of  Jewish  thoughts  and  aspirations,  where 
Jahweh's  presence  was  to  some  extent  localized  (3  Kings  viii.  13), 
where  His  eyes  and  heart  were  to  remain  perpetually  (3  Kings  ix. 
3;  2  Paralip.  vii.  16);  it  is  this  Temple  that  Christ  in  a  familiar 
manner  spoke  of  as  "His  Father's  house."  He  afterwards  again 
called  it  His  Father's  house,  tov  olxov  tou  n<zxp6<;  ^ou  (John  ii. 
17)  when  forcibly  ejecting  the  money  changers  who  were  defiling 
it.  According  to  the  account  of  the  cleansing  described  by  the 
Synoptics1  (Matthew  xix.  12,  13;  Mark  ix.  13-17;  Lukexix.  45- 
46)  Christ  quotes  the  text  "My  house  is  the  house  of  prayer." 
Christ  always  associated  Himself  with  the  Temple2  and  as  He 
felt  called  upon  to  "cleanse"  it  in  after  life,  so  even  at  the  age  of 
twelve  (if  the  view  of  house  for  £v  toc<;  be  correct)  He  felt  He 
must  be  there.  Why  must  He  be  there  any  more  than  anybody 
else,  any  more  than  Mary  or  Joseph  for  instance?  A  very  close 
connection  with  Jahweh,  a  very  exceptional  self-consciousness  of 
His  relation  to  God  is  clearly  expressed  —  and  this,  be  it  always 
remembered,  in  spite  of  a  strong  abstract  transcendental  view  of 
God  prevailing  at  His  time. 

As  the  real  Son  of  God  Christ  would  naturally,  and  as  a  mat- 
ter of  course,  be  intimately  associated  with  the  Temple  and  re- 
gard it  as  His  Father's  house  where  He  must  be,  as  is  stated  in 
Heb.  iii.  6  (but  where  house  is  not  taken  as  a  material  building) 
Xgiuibq  Ik.  ox;  ulbq  £%l  tov  olxov  ataou.  Or,  as  Juvencus  para- 
phrases our  passage,  "...  quod  jure  paternis  sedibus  et  domibus 
natum  inhabitare  necesse  est."  3    Yes,  by  right  a  son  should  be  in 

1  The  Synoptics  seem  to  be  describing  a  different  cleansing  from  that  described 
by  John.  Their  account  comes  towards  the  end  of  the  Public  Ministry,  while  his  is 
at  the  beginning.  These  are  two  different  occasions,  as  is  pointed  out  by  Chrysos- 
tom  (Horn,  xxiii.  on  St.  John  NP-NF  XIV.  80). 

2  Indeed  as  Schaefer  points  out  "the,  self  revelations  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God 
are  connected  especially  with  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem,"  Mother  of  Jesus  in  Script. 
234. 

'Corp.  Script.  Lat.  XXIV.  18. 


100     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

his  father's  house,  and  to  a  great  extent  he  has  a  right  to  call  the 
father's  house  his  house.  Hence  it  is  that  Origen  says  that  Christ 
was  in  His  own  (Iv  Ihioiq) l  when  He  declared:  "I  must  be  in 
the  house  of  My  Father."  If  one  would  not  be  ready  to  admit 
that  Christ  claimed  the  Temple  as  His  own  house  by  calling  it 
His  Father's,  at  least  one  has  to  admit,  that  by  referring  to  the 
Temple  in  a  familiar  way  as  His  Father's  house,  He  very  closely 
associated  Himself  with  Jahweh's  great  house  and  with  Jahweh 
Himself,  and  this  is  best  explained  in  the  light  of  the  real  rela- 
tionship of  "Son"  to  the  "Father." 

(C)  The  Boy  Jesus  does  not  say  it  is  proper,  or  it  is  becoming 
that  I  be  in  the  (things)  of  My  Father,  but  He  says  it  is  neces- 
sary, Bet.  Let  the  usage  of  the  Evangelist  be  our  criterion  for  ar- 
riving at  the  exact  significance  of  this  word. 

Christ  uses  this  word  Bet  when  telling  Zacchaeus  that  He  must 
abide  in  his  house,  Set  ^e  yieTvat  (Luke  ix.  5.)  He  uses  it  when 
telling  the  people  of  Capharnaum  who  wished  to  detain  Him 
there,  that  in  other  cities  as  well  must  He  preach  (iu<XT{ekia<x<:Q(xi) 
the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  reason  of  the  necessity  was  because 
for  this  was  He  sent  (Luke  iv.  43) . 

Referring  again  to  His  work,  and  vaguely  alluding  to  His 
passion,  Christ  again  uses  this  word  when  in  answer  to  the  Phari- 
sees who  warned  Him  to  depart  and  go  into  Judaea  for  Herod  had 
a  mind  to  kill  Him,  He  said  ironically  it  cannot  be  (oux  hZi%9xm) 
that  a  prophet  be  put  to  death  outside  of  Jerusalem,  howbeit  it 
is  ordained  by  Divine  decree  that  I  go  on  my  way  hence  (xX^jv  Bet 
pie)  as  Herod  desires,  not  however,  because  you  suggest  it,  but 
because  My  work  at  this  time  requires  it.  (Luke  xiii.  33.)  2  To 
express  the  necessity  there  was  on  Him  to  suffer  many  things,  to 
die  and  rise  again,  the  Son  of  Man  used  this  word  Bet  in  Luke  ix. 
22,  and  again  in  Luke  xvii.  25. 

Christ  felt  and  expressed  that  He  must  go  to  His  sufferings 
and  death  as  it  was  part  of  a  Divine  decree,  as  it  was  determined 
for  Him  (xoctoc  to  wpta^xlvov,  Luke  xxii.  22)  and  He  uses  the  word 
we  are  considering  to  designate  the  necessity  of  His  fulfilling  the 
text  of  Scripture:  He  was  reckoned  as  a  malefactor  (Bet  TeXea0Tjvat 
£v  I[jlo(,  Luke  xxii.  37).  And  the  Risen  Saviour  makes  use  of  it  in 
dispelling  the  misunderstandings  of  the  Apostles  and   disciples 

1  Given  in  M.PG  XIII.  1852,  note. 

2  We  are  giving  here  Plummer's  paraphrase  of  the  verse  (Comment,  ad  loc.,  354). 


REAL  DIVINE  SQNSHlP  SXFBrtSSEp. \         101 

explaining  how  according  to  Moses,  the  prophets  and  the  Psalms, 
it  was  necessary  for  Him  to  have  acted  and  spoken  as  He  did,  to 
have  died,  risen  and  entered  into  His  glory,  Luke  xxiv.  26,  44,  and 
again  in  vs.  46,  —  where  the  same  idea  is  expressed  but  where  the 
best  texts  leave  out  the  Set. 

We  may  add  that  besides  this  use  of  the  word  by  Christ  in 
reference  to  Himself,  we  find  it  on  the  lips  of  St.  Peter  when 
preaching  that  the  heaven  must  receive  Christ,  5v  Bet  oupav&v 
(iiv  Se^aaOat,  Acts  iii.  21,  and  on  the  lips  of  St.  Paul  "declaring 
and  alleging  that  Christ  must  needs  have  (t6v  XptaT&v  IBet)  suffered 
and  risen  from  the  dead,"  Acts  xvii.  3.  St.  Paul  writes  this  word 
when  referring  to  the  necessity  of  Christ  in  reigning  (Bet  yap  aik&v 
paatXeuetv)  "till  He  had  put  all  his  enemies  under  His  feet," 
1  Cor.  xv.  25. 

From  the  usage  of  Bet  in  the  New  Testament,  we  see  the  jus- 
tice of  the  remark  of  Gigot  that  according  to  the  Third  Evangel- 
ist this  word  in  the  language  of  Christ  "invariably  refers  to  the 
Divine  decree  according  to  which  Jesus  had  to  carry  out  His  mis- 
sion on  earth,"  x  and  likewise  we  see  the  justice  of  the  inference 
of  Plummer  from  this  word  concerning  Christ,  "His  work  and 
His  sufferings  are  ordered  by  Divine  decree.  The  word  is  thus 
used  of  Christ  throughout  the  New  Testament."  2  Christ  with 
this  word  expresses  the  necessity  of  His  doing  something  because 
"for  that  He  was  sent,"  because  "it  was  so  determined,"  because 
"the  Scriptures  must  be  fulfilled."  Now  when  we  hear  this  "sa- 
cred must"3  among  the  first  words  of  Jesus,  we  can  see  that 
those  commentators,  who  held  that  here  Christ  referred  to  His 
mission  or  even  those  who  explain  the  "business"  that  Christ  al- 
ludes to,  as  the  Redemption,  were  only  arguing  from  the  usage 
of  this  word,  as  represented  by  our  Evangelist.  However  this 
may  be,  one  thing  is  certain,  this  word  put  by  St.  Luke  in  the 
mouth  of  Christ  is  a  very  strong  word,  it  expresses  His  "absolute 
constraint " 4  to  be  taken  up  with  His  Father's  business  or  in 
His  Father's  house.     By  this  expression  of  absolute  constraint 

1  The  Virgin  Birth  in  Lk.  ii.  IthQ  VIII  (1913)  433. 

2  Comment.  140. 

3  So  called  by  Stier,  Words  of  the  Lord  J.,  I.  23.  H.  Schmidt  calls  it  "das 
gbttlichen  del  (Bildung  und  Gehalt  des  messianisch.  Bewusstsein  J.,  St.  Kr.  LXII 
(1889)  429);  so  does  Baljon  (Commentaar,  72). 

*  Vincent,  Word  Studies,  I.  279. 


102   teS  "boyhood  consciousness  of  christ 

Jesus  indirectly  claims  a  very  close  association  and  relation  with 
God,  claims,  as  Briggs  *  points  out,  that  His  mind  is  ethically  one 
with  the  will  of  God.  And  this  as  a  boy  of  twelve,  how  explain 
it?  Why  should  He  feel  this  way  more  than  any  other  boy  who 
ever  lived?  Who  can  explain  how  He  should  arrive  at  this  frame 
of  mind,  lacking  experience  as  a  boy  necessarily  does?  We  are 
not  going  beyond  what  the  usage  of  the  word  allows  us,  when  we 
say  that  the  expression  indicates  a  self-consciousness  unique  in 
history,  indicates  (as  similarly  we  found  in  the  case  of  the  words 
"My  Father")  that  at  twelve  Christ's  mind  had  already  reached 
the  maturity  of  His  public  years,  that  development  in  His  self- 
consciousness  is  excluded.  When  we  learn  from  the  text  that  the 
saying  was  received  by  the  parents  not  with  ridicule  but  with  re- 
spect (as  shall  be  later  referred  to),  we  are  led  to  an  explanation 
in  harmony  with  the  conclusion  we  arrived  at  from  the  study  of 
the  words  "My  Father,"  namely  that  the  obligation,  the  neces- 
sity which  Jesus  felt,  arose  out  of  His  very  nature,  because  He 
was  the  real  Son  of  God.  The  obligation  was  natural,  the  word 
"must"  being  in  keeping  with  the  words  "My  Father."  At  any 
rate,  this  much  can  be  concluded  with  absolute  safety,  that  Jesus 
expressed  a  Sonship  with  God  closer  and  more  binding  than  any- 
body else  in  history. 

(D)  The  strong  word  Set  intensifies  the  elvat  £v  toT<;,  and  they 
both,  together  with  the  (is  and  the  tou  n<zTp6<;  ^ou,  are  intensified 
and  strengthened  by  the  governing  phrase,  oux.  JjBetTs;  did  you 
not  know,  or  were  you  not  aware?  These  words  reflect  the  spon- 
taneity and  assertiveness  of  Jesus'  reply.  Besides  they  imply 
that  the  reason  for  remaining  which  He  assigns  was  known  or 
should  have  been  known  to  Mary  and  Joseph.2  For  instance, 
when  St.  Paul  wrote,  "know  you  not  (oux  o'l Bores)  that  you  are 
the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (1  Cor.  iii.  16),  or  "know  you  not 
(otix,  otBate)  that  they  that  run  in  the  race,  all  indeed  run  but  one 
receiveth  the  prize"  (1  Cor.  ix.  24),  he  was  only  drawing  attention 
to  a  fact,  for  he  was  conscious  that  the  people  he  addressed 
knew  that  they  were  the  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that 

1  The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus,  34.     Cf.  Keil.  Comm.  Evang.  Mk.  u.  Luc. 
243-244. 

2  The  obK  of  course  requires  the  answer  "yes-" 


REAL  DIVINE  SONSHIP  EXPRESSED  103 

only  one  wins  the  prize.  So  the  words  of  Jesus  express  that  the 
parents  should  know  that  He  must  be  in  the  things  of  His  Father 
God.  How  could  they  know  this?  Judging  from  the  Gospel  nar- 
rative the  only  way  they  could  know  this  was  from  His  super- 
natural conception  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  miracles  that  at- 
tended His  coming  into  the  world.  These  He  is  evidently  recall- 
ing to  their  minds  by  His  words  "did  you  not  know?"  1  Here 
again  we  come  to  a  suggestion,  an  intimation  which  is  most  im- 
portant for  the  understanding  of  the  relationship  with  God  ex- 
pressed by  "My  Father"  in  Jesus'  words.  There  is  here  a  refer- 
ence to  the  Virgin  Birth  previously  described  by  St.  Luke.  Mary 
and  Joseph  ought  to  know  that  Christ  was  in  the  things  of  God, 
His  Father,  for  they  knew  that  He  was  supernaturally  born  of 
God,  that  without  a  human  father,  He  was  born  through  the 
power  and  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  which  birth,  there  is, 
as  we  have  said,  a  certain  physical  reason  and  basis  for  the  real 
Divine  Sonship  of  Jesus.  And  it  is  strict  exegesis  to  interpret  the 
Boy's  words  "My  Father"  in  the  light  of  this  supernatural  Di- 
vine Birth,  which  He  indirectly  recalls. 

(E)  Finally,  we  reach  the  even  more  assertive  and  matter-of- 
course  question,  tl  8ti  ^tqtscts  pie;  According  to  Adamson,2 
Mason,3  Plummer,4  and  Robinson,5  this  question,  "Why  did 
you  seek  me?"  implies  that  Christ  did  not  know  that  his  parents 
were  seeking  for  him  and  hence  implies  ignorance  as  well  as  per- 
plexity on  His  part.  But  these  words  need  not  have  been  ut- 
tered in  a  tone  of  surprise,  and  even  if  they  were,  it  could  be  done 
to  make  the  answer  more  emphatic.  Any  ordinary  boy,  who  was 
absent  from  his  parents  for  three  days,  could  scarcely  but  advert 
to  the  fact  that  they  were  looking  for  him,  much  less  a  boy  of  the 
"understanding"  (Luke  ii.  47)  of  Jesus.  There  is  no  ignorance 
implied  in  Christ's  words.  The  words  are  explicable  in  the  light 
of  what  follows:  "Did  you  not  know,"  where  there  is  given  the 
reason  why  the  parents  should  not  have  searched  for  the  missing 

1  This  was  early  seen  by  Titus  of  Bostra,  who  paraphrased  Jesus'  words,  "didst 
thou  not  conceive  as  a  virgin"  (Titus  von  Bostra,  152). 

2  Studies  of  the  Mind  in  C,  11,  12. 

3  The  Conditions'of  OurjLord's  Life,  148. 

4  The  Advance  of  Christ,  Exp.  ser.  4,  IV.,  p.  5. 
6  The  Self-limitation  of  the  Word  of  God,  72. 


104     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Boy.  In  her  question,  Mary  had  pointed  out  that  Joseph  and 
she  had  "sought  Him  sorrowing."  To  make  His  answer  more 
emphatic  He  took  up  her  "long-drawn-out  word  *  seeking'  "  l  and 
as  the  first  part  of  His  answer,  He  points  out  the  uselessness  of 
what  they  had  done,  and  this  He  did  in  the  form  of  a  question, 
Why  did  you  seek  me?  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  Christ  not  only 
objects  to  their  seeking  Him  with  sorrow  but  to  their  seeking 
Him  at  all.  From  the  ordinary  and  natural  point  of  view  these 
"parents"  had  a  right  to  seek  for  Him  on  missing  Him,  yet  by 
His  rhetorical  question  He  indirectly  points  out  that  they  should 
not  have  sought  for  Him;  that  it  was  needless,  and  that  they 
would  not  have  done  so,  if  they  had  attended  to  what  they  should 
know,  viz.,  His  Divine  origin  and  nature,  on  account  of  which 
there  was  an  obligation  (by  Divine  ordinance)  to  be  in  the  (things) 
of  his  Divine  Father.  In  presence  of  this  relation  with  God, 
which  they  should  know,  His  relation  with  them  and  their  claims 
on  Him  were  of  minor  importance,  —  this  is  what  is  insinuated 
by  Him,  as  shall  be  brought  out  in  the  following  pages. 

3.  THE  CONTRAST  WITH  THE  PRECEDING  VERSE 

Jesus'  first  recorded  saying  was  not  a  moral  dictum  or  a 
generalization;  it  was  intended  as  a  reply  to  His  mother,  the 
Evangelist  introducing  it  thus:    And  He  said  unto  them. 

VS.  48,  (b)  VS.  49 

Kod  efxsv  xpo<;  ataov  *?)  pnfJTYjp  Kal  elxev  xpo<;  aiko6<;* 

ataou*  t£xvov,  %l  £%o{-q<jaq  r}\iiv  t(  8ti  ^tqtscts  [lb;  oi3x  flosrus 

o5tgx;;  looo  6  xarfjp  aou  xiyti)  oti  iv  lolq  tou  n<zTp6<;  jjlou 

68uvwiJLevot  ^TQTQuyiiv  ae.  8si  elvaf  yie; 

As  has  been  referred  to,  the  words  tou  naTp6<;  p.ou  in  the  Son's 
reply  mark  a  contrast  to  6  xanfjp  aou  in  the  Mother's  question, 
and  this  contrast  is  equivalent  to  a  denial  that  Joseph  is  father 
and  a  reminder  of  the  Virgin  Birth. 

In  Jesus'  reply  there  is  more  than  a  disavowal  of  Joseph. 
Mary  in  her  question  had  appealed  not  only  to  the  claims  of 

1  As  Power  says,  "All  He  did  was  to  take  up  her  long-drawn-out  word  'seeking' 
and  show  it  was  not  entirely  appropriate."  Who  were  they  .  .  .  ?  IthQ  VII 
(1912)  279. 


REAL  DIVINE  SONSHIP  EXPRESSED  105 

Joseph,  but  also  to  those  of  herself.  Reminding  Him  of  His  re- 
lation to  her,  she  calls  Him  Son  (t£xvov),  She  was  His  true  and 
real  mother;  Joseph  though  only  foster  father  had  all  the  rights 
of  fathers  according  to  Jewish  law.  According  to  the  Jewish  law 
and  custom  the  "Son"  was  bound  to  obey,  respect  and  please 
them  in  all  things.  Why  is  it  then,  what  could  be  the  reason, 
that  He  surreptitiously  remained  behind  after  the  "  parents" '  de- 
parture and  caused  both  of  them  the  great  anxiety  and  weariness 
of  the  three  days  of  sorrowful  searching?  Mary's  question  is  a 
plea  for  her  violated  parental  rights;  and  she  could  scarcely 
have  put  the  matter  more  emphatically  than  she  did  with  her 
question  of  "why,"  "why  did  you  do  so  to  us  (fjjjuv)?" 

What  does  Jesus  say  to  this  charge?  Does  He  admit  a  culpa- 
bility, a  forgetfulness,  a  lack  of  dutifulness?  He  does  not.  He 
does  not  even  "express  sympathetic  regret  at  His  parents'  sor- 
row on  His  behalf."  l  In  a  short  succinct  reply  He  justifies  His 
action.  The  reason  that  He  assigns  is  His  relation  to  God.  In 
opposition  to  Mary's  parental  claims  (tIxvov  ...  6  xaTifjp  aou  xccy^) 
He  points  to  God  who  has  a  relation  to  Him  not  less  than  Father- 
hood (tou  non;p6q  ^o u),  with  a  claim  on  Him  that  by  necessity 
(indeed  by  Divine  ordinance),  He  be  in  His  house  or  about  His 
business;  rather  than  be  with  them  returning  home,  He  must  be 
in  God's  house,  or  rather  than  be  employed  in  their  affairs,  He 
must  be  employed  in  God's  affairs.  This  higher  relation  and 
claim,  and  what  they  entailed  for  Him,  the  parents  should  have 
known  and  adverted  to;  if  they  had  done  so,  they  would  not 
have  searched  for  Him.  To  the  mother's  question  He  replies 
with  a  double  question.  To  the  mother's  emphatic  "why"  (t(), 
He  rejoins  with  an  emphatic  why  (t(  <kt)>  "Why  did  you  seek 
me?"  Her  reason  was  grounded  on  "Thy  father  and  I."  His 
was,  "My  Father  and  I."  She  was  insistent  and  emphatic  on  the 
human  parental  rights,  He  was  more  insistent  and  emphatic  on 
His  duty  arising  from  the  parental  right  of  God.  This  justifying 
Himself  by  setting  the  claim  of  His  Father,  God,  over  against  the 
claims  of  His  earthly  parents  with  the  implication  that  the  for- 

1  Wilkinson:  Concerning  J.  C,  the  Son  of  Man,  42.  Also  Maclaren  (Gospel 
of  Luke,  40)  says  "  the  answer  might  well  startle  her.  It  has  not  a  word  of  regret 
nor  of  apology." 


106     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

mer  stringently  bound  Him  even  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  latter, 
this  certainly  lays  most  remarkable  emphasis  on  His  Divine  re- 
lation. From  the  human  point  of  view  the  obligations  of  a  child 
to  his  parents  are  the  most  binding  on  earth;  could  Jesus  there- 
fore lay  greater  emphasis  on  His  relation  to  God  than  by  saying 
that  in  comparison  with  it  His  relation  to  His  earthly  parents 
was  of  little  concern?  The  Boy  "knew  God  as  His  Father,  and 
this  in  a  manner  so  intimate  and  so  peculiar  that  ordinary  human 
relationships  are  as  nothing  in  comparison  with  the  relation  to 
God."  1  Since  He  is  making  a  contrast  or  comparison  between 
two  relations,  it  is  clear  that  the  one  on  the  side  which  He  justi- 
fies Himself  would  have  to  be  the  closer  and  stronger.  To  be 
closer  and  stronger  than  the  one  that  binds  a  child  to  his  parents, 
it  would  seem  we  would  have  to  postulate  a  supernatural  relation 
to  God.  As  Felder  says,  the  "tertium  comparationis "  is  not  eth- 
ical but  physical  fatherhood,2  and  so  real  Divine  Fatherhood  is 
to  be  understood  on  the  side  of  God. 

The  significance  of  the  contrast*or  comparison  between  Jesus' 
words  and  the  words  of  Mary,  is  brought  out  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
who  says  that,  in  His  reply,  Christ  showed  "He  was  above  human 
measure"  and  taught  that  His  human  mother  "had  been  made  the 
handmaid  of  the  dispensation;  .  .  .  but  that  He  was  by  nature 
and  truth  God  and  the  Son  of  the  Heavenly  Father." 3  It  is  done 
by  Ambrose  who,  commenting  on  our  passage,  writes:  "There 
are  two  generations  in  Christ,  the  one  paternal,  the  other  mater- 
nal, the  paternal  the  more  Divine"  and  that  "here  the  mother  is 
censured  because  she  demands  what  is  human."  4  It  is  more 
clearly  done  by  Augustine,  who  writes  that  Christ  in  His  words 
to  Mary  and  Joseph  did  not  mean  "you  are  not  My  parents,  but 
you  are  My  parents  temporarily,  He  My  Father  eternally;  you, 
the  parents  of  the  Son  of  man,  He  the  Father  of  the  Word  and 
Wisdom." 5  It  is  done  by  Theodoret,  who,  referring  to  Mary's 
question,  says  that  Jesus  was  "blamed  by  His  mother,"  and 
referring  to  the  Son's  reply  says, "He  defends  Himself  (axoXoyeTTat) 
and  quietly  reveals  His  Divinity."  6     But  especially  is  it  done  by 

1  D'Arcy,  art.  Consciousness,  HDG  I.  361. 

2  Jesus  Christus,  I.  330. 

3  M.PG  LXXII.  509. 

4  Corp.  Script.  Lat.  XXXII.  75. 
6  Corp.  Script.  Lat.  XLII.  225. 
6  M.PG  LXXXIV.  73. 


REAL  DIVINE  SONSHIP  EXPRESSED  107 

Simeon  Metaphrastes,  who  says  explicitly  that  Christ  "corrected 
the  saying  of  His  mother,  recalled  the  truth  to  their  minds  and 
pointed  out  that  rather  the  parents  were  to  be  blamed  for  not  say- 
ing or  thinking  the  truth  of  things."  l  The  significance  of  Christ's 
words  as  considered  as  a  reply  to  His  mother,  is  held  by  all  those 
who  paraphrased  Christ's  words;  "I  dismiss  you  on  account  of 
the  eternal  Father,"  or  who  say  that  He  opposed  the  business  of 
God  His  Father,  to  the  business  of  His  parents;  the  significance 
is  recognized  by  those  who  cast  doubt  on  the  historicity  of  the 
passage,  on  the  plea  of  its  strangeness  and  unnaturalness;  Bruno 
Bauer  is  a  good  example.2 

As  we  have  seen,  Meyer  and  H.  Holtzmann  deny  that  there 
is  a  contrast  on  the  ground  that  it  would  be  unnatural.  Having 
only  this  a  priori  reason  to  offer,  they  imply  that  the  contrast  is 
there,  and  at  the  same  time  bear  witness  to  its  force.  It  is  un- 
natural; it  is  not  what  we  would  expect  from  a  natural  point  of 
view,  namely  if  Christ  was  not  conscious  of  being  the  true  Son  of 
God.  It  is  supernatural,  and  from  the  point  of  view  of  His  strict 
Divine  Sonship  this  taking  up  and  applying  to  God  the  term 
"Father"  and  this  setting  His  relation  to  God  over  against  His 
relation  to  the  "parents"  were  perfectly  natural. 

How  gratuitous  is  the  assumption  of  Lange  3  and  Loisy  4  that 
the  contrast,  which  is  in  the  text,  was  not  intended !  What  is  their 
foundation  for  this?  Where  is  there  anything  to  this  effect  stated 
in  the  text?  There  is  not  the  slightest  hint  in  the  narrative  that 
words  are  set  down  which  are  not  intended.  On  the  contrary,  the 
context  warrants  us  in  taking  Christ's  words  for  all  they  are  worth, 
as  will  be  evidenced  in  subsequent  chapters. 

In  the  words  of  Jesus  there  is  a  contrast  with  the  words  of 
Mary.  Is  there  more  than  this?  Is  there  a  reprehension  or  re- 
proof or  rebuff?  The  affirmative  seems  to  be  held  by  Ambrose,5 
Nilus,6  and  Theodoret.7     Impelled  by  theological  bias  Erasmus 

1  M.PG  CXV.  548. 

2  Kritik  der  Evang.  I.  293-294. 

3  Life  of  Christ,  324. 

4  Les  fivang.  Synop.  I.  88. 

6  "Hie  mater  arguitur,"  Corp.  Script.  Lat.  XXXII.  75. 

6  In  two  different  places  Nilus  writes  that  Christ  reprehended  (kTiTifj&VTOs) 
Mary  for  seeking  Him  among  His  relatives,  M.PG  LXXIX.  229  and  776. 

7  In  the  passage  "at  one  time  He  gives  honor  to  His  mother  as  to  her  that  gave 
Him  birth,  at  another  time  He  rebukes  (&riri/i£)  her  as  her  Lord"  (M.PGLXXXHI. 
144). 


108     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

and  many  of  the  early  Reformers  loudly  advocated  this  view,  but 
nowadays  there  is  scarcely  any  scholar  *  who  holds  it. 

Whether  Christ  was  brusque  or  not  to  His  parents  on  this  oc- 
casion,2 would  depend  on  the  tone  in  which  He  uttered  the  words. 
This  has  not  been  preserved  for  us,  but  we  would  judge  it  to  be 
mild  from  the  way  the  words  were  received;  they  were  received 
with  reverence  by  Mary  (51).  Was  there  need  of  a  reprehension? 
Mary  was  insisting  on  her  natural  rights,  was  appealing  to  custom 
and  the  way  of  action  followed  by  everybody.  Jesus  reminded  her 
of  another  claim  that  was  on  Him,  a  supernatural  one  which  nul- 
lified all  natural  claims;  hence  He  recalled  to  her  something  to 
which  she  was  not  adverting;  He  corrected  her  thoughts  concern- 
ing Him;  this  could  be  done  in  a  quiet  but  decisive  manner  and 
not  brusquely,  which  would  seem  out  of  harmony  with  the  con- 
text. 

It  was  not  a  rebuff  but  a  certain  correction  in  this  antithesis 
which  on  the  lips  of  a  Semite  need  not  sound  brusque.  In  what 
did  this  correction  precisely  consist?  Considering  that  it  was 
Mary  herself  who  heard  the  explicit  announcements  of  the  angel 
Gabriel  (Luke  i.  26-38),  considering  that  she  was  personally  ac- 
quainted with  all  the  facts  concerning  her  Son's  conception  and 
birth,  no  one  knew  better  than  she  His  miraculous  origin,  His 
supernatural  relation  to  God,  indeed  His  claim  and  right  to  be 
called  "the  Son  of  God"  (Luke  i.  35).  Mary  had  not  to  be  re- 
minded of  this  Divine  origin  and  His  relation  of  "Son"  to  God, 
but  she  had  to  be  reminded  of  what  this  relation  to  God  entailed. 
It  entailed  the  obligation  and  responsibility  of  being  concerned  in 
His  Father's  work  at  all  costs;  it  entailed  that  in  His  life's  work, 
the  end  for  which  He  came  into  this  world,  He  was  independent 
of  everything  earthly,  even  of  maternal  relationship.  Mary  should 
have  known  this,  and  if  she  reflected  on  the  matter  she  would 
realize  it;  that  is  why  He  says:  "Did  you  not  know  that  I  must 
be  in  the  (things)  of  My  Father?"    But  she  was  accustomed  to 

1  He  writes  that  Christ  in  His  words  "imo  plene  objurgat  objurgantes,"  Annota- 
tiones,  ad  loc.  in  Biblia  Critica,  VI.  275. 

2  Wallis  mentions  "rebuke"  but  says  it  was  "in  the  gentlest  form"  (About  My 
Father's  business.  .  .  .  Exp.  2d  ser.  VHI.  26);  Farmer  mentions  "a  slight  touch 
of  rebuke"  (HDG  I.  238);  Wilkinson  sees  "a  certain  sweet  and  gracious  reflection 
of  reproach"  (Concerning  J.  C.  the  Son  of  Man,  44). 


REAL  DIVINE  SONSHIP  EXPRESSED  109 

seeing  her  Boy  generally  acting  as  an  ordinary  boy,  and  she  was 
adopting  the  ordinary  attitude  herself;  her  complaint  in  her 
question  is  according  to  the  rights  of  parents,  namely  her  "Son" 
should  have  remembered  the  ties  of  relationship  that  bound  Him 
to  Joseph  and  herself,  and  should  have  advised  them  concerning 
His  tarrying  in  the  Temple.  In  an  emphatic  way,  yet  by  simply 
pointing  to  His  obligation  of  being  in  the  (things)  of  His  Father, 
Jesus  intimates  that  this  closest  tie  on  earth  for  Him,  not  only 
did  not  count,  but  must  be  sacrificed;  that  the  responsibilities 
arising  from  His  great  relation  to  His  Father  He  must  fulfil, 
"even  though  at  the  cost  of  some  severance  from  the  tender  ties 
of  home,  yea,  even  at  the  cost  of  some  pain  to  the  mother  whom 
He  loves  so  dearly."  l  This  then  was  the  correction  of  the  moth- 
erly point  of  view  of  Mary;  she  is  to  learn  that  she  is  not  to  be 
consulted,  that  the  spiritual  end  will  be  followed  by  Christ,  "what- 
ever the  cost  to  human  emotion,  whatever  the  price  affection 
would  have  to  pay,  even  a  mother's  and  a  son's."  2 

Christ's  self -consciousness  would  receive  all  the  more  force 
and  emphasis  in  the  view  that  He  administered  a  rebuke  to  Mary 
and  Joseph;  but,  as  D'Arcy  says,  the  contrast  in  Christ's  words 
was  more  "the  inevitable  reaction  of  His  consciousness  than  as  a 
deliberate  correction  of  His  mother.  If  so  it  is  all  the  more  im- 
pressive. It  shows  how  fundamental  was  the  position  in  His 
mind  of  the  filial  relation  to  which  He  stood  to  God."  3  Christ 
did  not  reprehend  His  mother,  but  by  not  excusing  Himself  or 
offering  an  apology  for  the  neglect  of  parental  rights,  more  than 
this,  by  His  emphatically  announcing  to  His  parents  that  He  was 
independent  of  and  superior  to  any  relation  to  them,  in  this  He 
revealed  a  superhuman,  a  supernatural  self-consciousness.  The 
neglect,  the  sacrifice  of  the  closest  ties  on  earth,  that  of  mother 
to  son,  is  insinuated  by  Christ's  words  and  this  when  they  simply 
raise  the  parents'  mental  vision  to  what  He  owes  Him  of  whom 

1  Hastings,  The  Great  Texts  ...  St.  Luke,  108.  As  Bartmann  (op.  cit.,  48) 
says,  "So  selbstverstandlich  als  es  der  Mutter  erscheint,  dass  ihr  Sohn  mit  ihnen 
die  Heimreise  antreten  musste,  so  selbstverstandlich  ist  es  dem  Sohne,  dass  er- 
zuriichblieb." 

2  Shanahan  "Was  the  Son  of  Man  brusque  to  His  Mother?"  Catholic  World, 
CIV  (1916)  354. 

8  Art.  Consciousness,  HDG  I.  361. 


110     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

He  is  the  eternal  Son.1  How  could  this  Sonship  be  more  empha- 
sized, or  conceived  to  be  of  a  more  special  quality?  We  have 
here  indirectly,  and  hence  all  the  more  strongly,  a  confirmation  of 
the  conclusion  we  arrived  at  from  the  individual  words  of  the 
first  saying,  that  they  contain  an  expression  of  real  Divine  Son- 
ship. 

This  first  lesson  Christ  teaches  His  parents  is  in  perfect  agree- 
ment with  the  sentiment  of  all  the  later  sayings  in  reference  to 
His  earthly  relations.  When  at  the  marriage  feast  of  Cana,  the 
mother,  by  pointing  out  there  was  no  wine,  indirectly  asked  her 
Son  to  supply  miraculously  the  deficiency,  He  replied,  "Lady! 
What  is  that  to  Me  and  to  thee?  My  hour  is  not  yet  come" 
(John  ii.  4).  He  thus  intimates  that  in  regard  to  His  work  Mary's 
maternal  rights  are  not  to  count  (this  is  what  His  words  ex- 
press, though  as  a  matter  of  fact,  at  her  request,  He  did  advance 
"His  hour").2  Again,  when  according  to  the  synoptics  (Matthew 
xii.  46-50;  Mark  iii.  31-35;  Luke  viii.  19-21),  His  mother  and 
His  brethren  came  to  Him  "while  He  was  yet  speaking,"  He  said 
in  answer  to  a  voice  in  the  crowd  which  advised  Him  of  the  ap- 
proach of  His  relatives  (here  again  making  a  contrast  with  words 
already  used),  "Who  is  My  mother  and  who  are  My  brethren? 
whosoever  will  do  the  will  of  My  Father  Who  is  in  heaven,  he  is 
My  brother  and  sister  and  mother,"  —  intimating  that  besides 
the  natural  there  was  another  bond  which  was  to  be  preferred, 
the  spiritual  one  or  that  relation  having  reference  to  God,  His 
Father.3  Similarly,  on  the  occasion  that  a  woman  in  the  audi- 
ence raised  her  voice  in  praise  of  His  mother,  "Blessed  is  the 
womb  that  bore  thee  .  .  .  ,"  not  denying  or  contradicting  what 
was  said,  the  Saviour  makes  a  transition  to  emphasize  a  spiritual 
point,4  "yea,  rather  blessed  are  they  that  hear  the  word  of  God 

1  As  Bede  writes:  "Non  quod  eum  quasi  filium  quaerunt,  vituperat,  sed  quid  ei 
potius  cui  aeternus  est  filius  debeat,  cogit  oculos  mentis  attollere."  M.PL  XCII. 
350. 

2  As  Gregory  the  Great  paraphrases  the  passage:  "In  the  miracle  which  I 
have  not  of  thy  nature,  I  do  not  acknowledge  thee"  (Ep.  xxxix.  NP-NF  XIII.  49). 

3  Comparing  Lk.  ii.  49  with  this  passage,  Streatfeild  says,  "truly  the  Child  was 
father  of  the  man"  (The  Self -Interpretation  of  J.  C,  128). 

4  Cf.  what  Chrysostom  says  concerning  this  passage,  "for  the  answer  was  not 
that  of  one  rejecting  His  mother,  but  of  one  who  should  show  that  her  having  borne 
Him  would  have  nothing  availed  her  had  she  not  been  very  good  and  faithful" 
(Horn.  XXI.  on  St.  John,  NP-NF  XIV.  75). 


REAL  DIVINE  SONSHIP  EXPRESSED  111 

and  keep  it"  (Luke  xi.  27,  28).  Lastly  Christ  intimates  this  usual 
stand,  when  from  the  cross  addressing  Mary,  He  does  not  call  her 
mother,  "Lady,  behold  thy  Son"  (John  xix.  26). 

So  that  the  position  that  Christ  assumed  to  His  relatives  in 
Luke  ii.  49,  is  the  one  He  took  in  their  regard  during  His  later 
years.  In  His  first  words  He  "strikes  the  keynote  of  all  His  after 
life."  J  He  outlines  a  policy  He  was  always  to  follow.  He  is 
clear  and  emphatic  on  the  matter,  more  explicit  and  more  em- 
phatic than  in  His  later  utterances.  This  certainly  affords  a 
strong  confirmation  of  our  view  that  Christ  expressed  real  Son- 
ship;  that  Jesus  at  the  tender  age  of  twelve  should  outline  a  pol- 
icy He  was  to  follow  all  His  life,  this  policy  one  which  is  contrary 
to  the  ordinary  mode  of  action  of  mankind,  particularly  contrary 
to  the  habits  and  instincts  of  youth,  and  this  done  in  an  unhesi- 
tating matter-of-course  fashion,  there  would  be  clearly  evidenced 
that  He  was  in  possession  of  a  supernatural  self-consciousness,  for 
such  a  strange  attitude,  already  determined  on  so  early,  could  not 
be  the  result  of  meditation  or  experience  and  would  exclude  the 
workings  of  the  laws  of  human  development  and  psychology. 

To  summarize  briefly  the  matter  inversely  from  the  order  we 
have  followed:  In  answer  to  His  mother,  who  complained  of 
parental  rights  violated,  not  in  an  apologizing  attitude  but  with 
emphasis,  Christ  mentions  a  parental  right  binding  Him  even  to 
the  neglect  and  sacrifice  of  earthly  connections.  Making  a  cor- 
rection of  Mary's  words,  He  insinuates  that  Joseph  is  not  "father," 
mentioning  another,  God.  That  His  relation  with  God  goes  back 
to  His  origin,  to  His  "Virgin  Birth,"  is  recalled  to  the  parents' 
minds  by  the  words:  "Why  did  you  seek  me?  Did  you  not 
know?"  It  was  a  relation  that  bound  Christ  by  absolute  neces- 
sity, indeed  by  Divine  ordination  that  He  be  in  God's  house 
(mentioned  in  a  familiar  manner),  or  that  He  be  entirely  en- 
grossed in  God's  business.  His  relation  and  all  that  it  implies  is 
expressed  in  the  crowning  words  of  the  saying,  "My  Father." 
This  expression  —  a  great  departure  from  the  usual  Jewish  way 
of  referring  to  God,  and  of  considering  God,  an  expression  which 
specifies  God  as  His  own  individual  Father,  is  uttered  by  the 

1  Smith,  The  Days  of  His  Flesh,  23.     Cf .  Robertson,  Keywords  in  the  Teaching 
of  J.,  13. 


112     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

twelve-year-old  Saviour  in  the  same  self-confident  off-hand  mat- 
ter-of-course manner  as  was  Christ's  wont  during  His  whole  life; 
judging  from  this  we  are  directed  and  led  to  the  view  of  real  Di- 
vine Sonship. 

These  words  that  fell  from  the  lips  of  the  Boy  Jesus  show  that 
there  was  no  growth  in  His  self-consciousness  and  no  growth  in 
His  outlook  on  big  questions  of  His  life.  At  the  tender  age  of 
twelve  His  mind  is  decidedly  made  up  on  His  special  characteris- 
tic title  for  God,  "My  Father,"  for  expressing  His  special  rela- 
tion to  Him,  —  indeed  this  was  the  most  characteristic  of  all 
Christ's  teachings.  He  is  emphatic  with  His  "must,"  for  ex- 
pressing His  responsibility  and  obligation  arising  from  His  Divine 
origin  and  relation;  He  is  clear  and  explicit  in  enunciating  His 
attitude  towards  His  earthly  relations  who  are  to  be  always  sac- 
rificed when  God  and  God's  work  are  concerned.  Fundamental 
attitudes  and  policies  that  are  characteristic  of  His  later  life,  and 
that  mark  Him  off  from  every  other  historical  person,  Christ  em- 
phatically announces  as  a  boy.  The  laws  of  human  develop- 
ment and  psychology  were  certainly  outwitted  and  frustrated  by 
Him. 

We  wish  to  draw  attention  to  the  fact  that  our  conclusion  in 
this  chapter  is  based  on  the  study  of  the  words  of  the  text,  is  ar- 
rived at  from  the  evident  reading  of  what  is  before  us,  is  deduced 
from  the  representation  of  the  Evangelist.  We  are  not  concerned 
with  the  question  how  Christ's  words  appealed  to  the  Doctors 
and  bystanders  who  probably  heard  them;  most  likely  they  did 
not  understand  them  to  express  real  Divine  Sonship,  although 
the  special  and  close  relation  to  God  that  the  Boy  Jesus  an- 
nounces must  have  astonished  the  Doctors  and  bystanders  just  as 
much  as  His  understanding  and  answers  had  previously  done. 
Nor  are  we  so  much  concerned  with  the  question  how  Mary  and 
Joseph  understood  Christ's  words,  although  with  the  knowledge 
that  they  possessed,  they  could  hardly  have  taken  the  relation  to 
God  He  expressed  in  any  other  sense  than  the  metaphysical.  But 
what  we  are  concerned  with,  and  what  we  wish  to  insist  on,  is 
that  the  text  as  it  stands,  the  words  in  the  setting  given  by  the 
Evangelist,  would  clearly  point  to  the  view  that  Jesus  expressed 
real  Divine  Sonship.    A  strong  confirmation  of  this  is  found  in 


REAL  DIVINE  SONSHIP  EXPRESSED  113 

the  fact  that  even  members  of  the  negative  school  hold  this  view. 
Usener,  who  rejects  the  historicity  of  the  episode  of  the  twelve- 
year-old  Jesus,  says  it  is  introduced  "for  the  purpose  of  allowing 
the  consciousness  of  Divine  Sonship  to  receive  its  first  manifesta- 
tion (vs.  49)."  l 

1  Art.  Nativity,  EB  III.  3344. 


CHAPTER  X 

MESSIANIC  CONSCIOUSNESS  INCLUDED  IN  CHRIST'S 
FIRST  SELF-INTERPRETATION 

In  Jewish  tradition  it  was  held  that  when  the  Messiah  would 
come,  He  would  stand  in  a  very  close  relationship  to  Jahweh, 
and  frequently  this  relationship  was  declared  to  be  that  of  "Son" 
to  "Father."  For  instance,  in  Ps.  ii.  7  (and  there  is  no  doubt 
that  the  Jews  held  this  passage  to  be  Messianic),  we  read,  "The 
Lord  hath  said  to  me:  Thou  art  My  Son,  this  day  have  I  be- 
gotten Thee."  Here  is  certainly  designated  a  most  special  per- 
sonal relation  to  God.  Frequently  in  the  Old  Testament  Apoc- 
rypha (which  reflect  Jewish  ideas  in  the  centuries  immediately 
preceding  the  Christian  era),  do  we  find  this  designation  of  "Son" 
of  Jahweh  applied  to  the  Messiah.  In  1  En.  cv.  2,  we  find  "For 
I  and  My  Son  will  be  united  with  them  forever,"  in  4  Esd.  vii. 
28,  "For  My  Son  the  Messiah  shall  be  revealed,"  etc.  This 
fact  seems  clear,  then,  that  the  Jews  had  expected  that  their 
"Anointed  One"  would  enjoy  a  very  close  relationship  with  God, 
and  many  of  them  considered  this  relationship  as  that  of  Son. 

Now,  when  as  a  Boy  of  twelve  years,  Jesus  expressed  a  rela- 
tionship with  God  that  was  far  closer  than  that  expressed  by  any 
of  the  Prophets  or  great  leaders  of  Old  Testament  times,1  when 
he  claimed  a  unique  relationship,  declaring  special  Divine  Son- 
ship,  then  in  the  light  of  the  Jewish  hope  and  expectation,  it  is 
clear  that  He  claimed  Messiahship;  in  the  light  of  Jewish  writ- 
ings this  title  of  "Son"  designating  a  very  special  relation  with 
God  would  be  nothing  else  than  another  name  for  "Messiah." 
Indeed  most  of  the  modern  liberal  scholars  take  Christ's  title 
"Son  of  God"  as  meaning  only  Messiahship;  and  almost  all  of 
them  understand  the  references  to  Divine  Sonship  in  the  ac- 

1  As  we  referred  to  above,  even  Samuel  and  David  took  the  attitude  towards 
God  as  that  of  "servant"  towards  "Lord." 

114 


MESSIANIC  CONSCIOUSNESS  115 

counts  of  Christ's  baptism  (Thou  art  My  beloved  Son,  Luke  iii. 
22)  and  temptation  (If  Thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  Luke  iv.  3,  9), 
as  signifying  Messiahship.  Why  should  one  not  similarly  under- 
stand Jesus'  own  statement  of  His  Divine  Sonship,  when  in  His 
first  words  He  said  "My  Father"?  There  is  no  reason  except  an 
a  priori  one,  why  one  should  not.  In  declaring  Himself  to  be  the 
special  Son  of  God,  Christ  assumed  the  characteristic  name  given 
to  the  Messiah  in  promise  and  prophecy;  furthermore  He  gave  a 
fuller  and  truer  designation  of  whom  He  was,  besides  Messiah,  the 
real  Son  of  God. 

According  to  the  hope  of  the  Jews,  the  Messiah  was  to  be 
privileged  with  a  special  relationship  to  God,  but  he  was  pri- 
marily one  sent  to  do  a  certain  work  for  God,  to  fulfil  a  certain 
mission.  If  there  is  reference  to  His  mission  in  Jesus'  first  words, 
then  there  would  be  conclusive  proof  that  He  reflected  there 
Messianic  self -consciousness.  We  think  there  is  this  reference  in 
the  first  recorded  saying.  Broadly  speaking,  Christ's  mission  was 
to  preach  the  Kingdom  of  God,  to  suffer  and  finally  to  die. 
Now  whenever  He  refers  to  the  mission  for  which  "He  was  sent," 
which  was  "ordained"  for  Him,  which  was  according  to  the 
"Scriptures,"  He  generally  uses  the  word  8el  to  express  His  obli- 
gation to  fulfil  His  Mission,  hence  it  would  seem  that  He  does 
likewise  in  the  first  words.  This  inference  would  seem  to  be  all 
the  more  safe  for  two  reasons:  first,  in  Luke  ii.  49,  the  Bet  is  con- 
nected with  or  rather  flows  from  Christ's  very  special  relation  to 
God  (My  Father),  secondly,  considering  the  passage  in  relation 
to  Mary's  question,  the  Set  here  has  an  extraordinary  force,  signi- 
fying Jesus'  obligation  to  be  in  the  (things)  of  God  at  the  sacrifice 
of  His  earthly  parents.  Now  as  to  the  first  reason,  Jesus'  obliga- 
tion arising  from  His  great  relation  to  God,  here  He  would  ex- 
press His  Messiahship  just  as  much  as  if  He  said  He  must  do 
something  because  He  was  sent  therefor,  or  because  He  must 
fulfil  a  Scriptural  text.  His  Mission  could  flow  from  His  origin 
and  nature  just  as  much  as  from  mandate  or  ordinance.  As  to 
the  second  consideration,  the  obligation  from  Christ's  relation  to 
God  causing  anxiety  and  sorrow  to  the  parents,  this  anxiety  and 
sorrow  would  not  be  caused  if  there  was  no  question  of  special 
work  to  be  done  for  God.     When  the  people  of  Capharnaum 


116     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

wished  the  Saviour  to  remain  with  them,  He  said,  "to  other 
cities  must  I  also  preach  the  Kingdom  of  God,  for  this  am  I 
sent"  (Luke  iii.  32),  using  "must"  in  a  parallel  sense  to  being 
"sent"  and  hence  referring  to  His  Mission.  He  would  seem  to 
have  also  referred  to  His  mission,  to  special  work  for  God,  when 
in  answer  to  the  "parents"  who  had  considered  that  He  should 
have  accompanied  them  on  their  way  home  and  should  not  have 
remained  behind,  Jesus  replied,  "I  must  be  in  the  (things)  of  My 
Father,"  here  designating  the  necessity  ("must")  as  springing 
from  His  relation  to  God  ("My  Father").  If  "business"  is  to 
be  understood  for  iv  toT<;,  then  the  meaning  of  Luke  ii.  49  is  that 
Christ  feels  that  as  "Son"  of  God  He  must  be  engaged  in  His 
Father's  affairs,  and  here  then  would  be  a  clear  reference  to  His 
mission  or  Messiahship.  If  rather  it  is  "house"  that  is  meant, 
then  this  center  of  Jewish  devotion,  this  great  national  shrine  of 
Jahweh  is  styled  by  Jesus,  "My  Father's  house,"  and  this  in  a 
familiar  way  which  one  would  a  priori  expect  from  the  Messiah. 
When  all  is  considered,  especially  the  most  special  relation  to 
God  as  "Son,"  and  the  use  of  Set  expressing  His  obligation  flow- 
ing from  this  relation,  and  this  considered  in  the  light  of  the  Old 
Testament,  in  the  light  of  Christ's  later  life,  in  the  light  of  the 
following  verse  (50)  which  states  that  the  parents  "did  not  un- 
derstand," intimating  that  the  full  scope  of  Christ's  words  was 
only  understood  afterwards  (as  we  shall  later  see),  when  all  is 
considered  it  seems  clear  that  in  Luke  ii.  49,  Christ  expressed 
with  His  Divine  Sonship,  Messianic  self-consciousness.  A  strong 
confirmation  is  afforded  by  the  fact  that  a  number  of  the  nega- 
tive scholars  hold  that  the  text  as  it  stands  (although  they  object 
to  its  historicity)  signifies  Messiahship.  Giving  it  a  kind  of  para- 
phrase, Paulus  interpolates  in  the  text:  The  Messiah,  "the  Son 
of  God."  *  Strauss  very  explicitly  states  that  Christ's  words 
"must  have  a  special  meaning  which  can  here  be  no  other  than 
the  mystery  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  who  as  Messiah  was 
[i\6q  ©sou  in  a  special  sense."  2  In  his  comments  on  our  passage 
Bruno  Bauer  calls  Christ,  "the  Messianic  Child."  3    Loisy  is  most 

1  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I.  18.    Cf.  Exegetisches  Handbuch,  280. 

2  Life  of  Jesus,  195. 

8  Kritik  der  Evangelien,  I.  293. 


MESSIANIC  CONSCIOUSNESS  117 

emphatic  on  the  matter;  "the  reply  of  Jesus  is  full  of  signifi- 
cance, because  He  was  already  conscious  of  being  the  Messiah; 
to  see  there  the  simple  expression  of  precocious  piety  is  to  com- 
promise the  economy  of  the  account."  1  But  these  men  just 
quoted  will  not  accept  the  genuineness  of  the  passage  on  the  plea 
that  one  could  not  naturally  account  for  this  Messianic  conscious- 
ness in  a  twelve-year-old  boy.  Strauss  particularly  has  pointed 
out  this:  That  there  are  certain  vocations  or  callings  in  life  of 
which  exceptional  men  might  early  give  evidence  of  being  aware, 
but  there  are  other  vocations  such  as  that  of  statesman  for  which 
only  experience  and  knowledge  of  facts  can  excite  even  an  incli- 
nation. Strauss  rightly  says  that  the  calling  of  Messiah  belongs 
to  the  latter  class  and  he  concludes  concerning  the  twelve-year- 
old  Christ  that  the  Messianic  consciousness  "could  not  be  so 
early  evident  to  the  most  highly  endowed  individual  because  for 
this  a  knowledge  of  contemporary  circumstances  would  be  requi- 
site, which  only  long  observation  and  mature  experience  can  con- 
fer." 2 

This  is  clear,  then,  that  one  cannot  naturally  explain  how 
Jesus  at  twelve  could  possess  consciousness  of  being  the  Messiah. 
It  is  clear,  too,  and  also  acknowledged  by  these  scholars  that  the 
first  recorded  words  do  contain  Messianic  consciousness.  Instead 
of  resorting  to  the  extreme  of  rejecting  the  historicity  (in  favor  of 
which  we  have  abundant  evidence  as  shown  above,  pp.  60-72) 
we  look  for  an  explanation  more  than  the  merely  natural.  In 
seeking  for  this  we  are  led  back  to  the  source  from  which  Christ's 
mission  flowed,  on  account  of  which  He  felt  the  great  obligation 
to  be  engaged  in  God's  special  work,  namely  to  His  great  rela- 
tionship with  God,  toO  IIaTp6<;  pou,  His  real  Divine  Sonship. 
This  Sonship  is  not  only  the  basis,  but  also  the  perfection  of 
Messiahship;  it  certainly  affords  an  explanation  why  Jesus  at 
twelve  could  be  conscious  of  being  the  Messiah;  so  that  we  do 
not  agree  with  Edersheim,3  Briggs4  and  the  other  scholars  who 
assert  that  in  the  first  words  nothing  more  than  Messiahship  is 
expressed.    Besides  a  mission,  Jesus  also  expressed  a  relation  to 

1  Les  fivang.  Synopt.,  I.  183. 

2  Life  of  Jesus,  195. 

3  The  Life  and  Times  of  J.,  I.  249. 

4  Messiah  of  the  Gosp.,  234. 


118     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

God;  indeed,  as  Harnack  points  out,  it  is  "impossible  to  imagine 
how  Christ  would  have  arrived  at  the  conviction  that  He  was  the 
future  Messiah  without  first  knowing  Himself  as  standing  in  an 
unique  relationship  to  God."  l  At  any  rate  in  Christ's  first  re- 
corded words  there  is  expressed  the  consciousness  of  both  real  Di- 
vine Sonship  and  Messiahship,  the  first  giving  rise  to  and  ex- 
plaining the  supernatural  occurrence  of  Messianic  consciousness 
of  a  boy  of  twelve. 

The  Fathers  did  not  mention  that  Messiahship  is  expressed  in 
Jesus'  first  words,  because  it  would  seem  that  they  had  no 
reason  to  do  so.  From  the  thirteenth  century  onward,  many 
writers  have  interpreted  Messianic  consciousness  in  the  first  re- 
corded saying,  holding  that  Christ  expressed  consciousness  both 
of  Divine  Sonship  and  Messiahship.2  Many  of  those  scholars 
who  hold  that  Christ  expressed  the  consciousness  of  His  Messi- 
anic mission,  refer  to  this  mission  as  the  salvation  of  the  world  or 
Redemption;  they  have  a  twofold  reason;  first,  Christ  referred 
to  a  mission,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  His  mission  was  to  suffer 
and  die  for  mankind;  secondly  Christ  used  the  "must"  which 
He  so  frequently  employed  in  regard  to  His  sufferings  and  death.3 
This  remarkable  fact  that  at  such  an  early  age  Jesus  gave  evi- 
dence of  His  full  conviction  of  His  mission, — we  say  "full"  for 
Christ's  explicit  and  emphatic  words  give  no  room  for  the  view 
of  a  "doubting"  or  "budding"  self -consciousness,  is  another  con- 
firmatory reason  for  the  conclusion  in  the  previous  chapter.  This 
full  conviction  of  His  Messiahship  at  the  age  of  twelve,  inexplic- 
able on  natural  premises,  as  is  pointed  out  by  negative  scholars,  is 
conclusive  evidence  that  here,  too,  Jesus  had  no  development  in 
His  self-consciousness,  and  was  not  subject  to  the  laws  of  psy- 
chology. 

1  Sayings  of  J.,  301. 

2  See  especially  Calvin,  Comment,  in  Harm.  Evang.  Opera  Omnia,  XLV.  106; 
Lucas,  Comment,  ad  loc.  given  in  Migne,  Cursus  S.S  XXII.  465;  Cornelius  a 
Lapide,  Comment,  in  S.  Script.  VIII.  535;  Fillion,  Art.  in  RClfr  April  I  (1914)  15; 
and  Felder,  Jesus  Christus,  I.  278-281. 

3  As  Steinmeyer  expresses  the  matter:  Wer  jedoch  dieses,  -nrarrip  /xov  in  dem 
einzig  moglichen  Sinne  fasst,  der  erkennt  auch  an  dem  del  den  Heiland  und  den 
Erloser  der  Welt  (Die  Geschichte  der  Geburt  des  Herra,  168). 


SECTION  V 

JESUS'  FIRST  RECORDED  WORDS  AND  THE 
IMMEDIATE  CONTEXT 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  SCENE  AMONG  THE  DOCTORS 

Although  the  sacred  record  does  not  inform  us  in  what  part 
of  the  Temple  Mary  and  Joseph  found  the  missing  Boy  Jesus,  it 
lets  us  know  something  about  His  position  and  what  He  was 
doing  when  found;  "sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  (teachers  or)  doc- 
tors," hence  in  a  sitting  posture,  and  "hearing  and  questioning 
them."  The  present  participle  of  both  verbs  is  used  (axouovxa, 
ixepwTwvra),  denoting  continuous  action;  listening  to  them  and 
asking  them  questions,  not  merely  asking  a  question.  This  verse 
(46)  must  be  understood  in  the  light  of  the  effect  produced  by 
the  twelve-year-old  Boy  which  we  immediately  proceed  to  ex- 
amine. 

1.   WORD  scrutiny  of  luke  ii.  47,  48  (a). 

47  'E?(<jTavTo  81  xavusq  ol  dxouovre*;  auiou  M 
xfj  auvlaet  xal  tofiq  axoxpiasaiv  auTOu. 

48  (a) — Kod  (B6vts<;  ocut&v  ^sxXaiprjaav. 

What  is  the  meaning  of  i%\  T75  auvlcet  %od  'zofiq  axoxpfaeciv? 
The  last  word,  dxoxpfaeatv,  signifies  "answers."  The  question  of 
the  meaning  of  c6v£ac<;  is  not  so  easy.  The  Curetonian  Syriac 
and  Armenian  render  it  by  "wisdom,"  the  Vulgate  by  "pru- 
dentia,"  the  Douay  by  "wisdom,"  and  the  Revised  by  "under- 
standing." l  Since  there  is  no  general  agreement  in  the  versions 
concerning  the  precise  meaning  of  this  word,  and  since  its  verb 
guvitq^i  in  Luke  ii.  50  is  diversely  interpreted,  a  summary  of  the 
usage  of  the  noun  and  the  verb  in  the  New  Testament  will  doubt- 
less be  useful. 

Now,  first,  as  to  the  use  of  the  verb  auv(T)[Ai  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment;  it  is  used  in  Mtt.  xii.  19,  23,  51;  xv.  10;  to  signify  "bring 

1  The  Old  Latin  Codex  Palatinus  (e)  has  "prudentia  et  os  et  responsa."    Tyn- 
dal's  —  the  first  English  translation  from  the  Greek  —  has  "witt." 

121 


122     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

home  to  oneself,"  or  "realize"  (a  parable).  In  Mtt.  xvii.  13,  it 
signifies,  "understand  the  connection  or  reference"  and  with 
much  the  same  meaning  it  is  found  in  Mtt.  xvi.  12;  Mk.  viii.  17; 
in  both  of  which  it  is  identified  with  voiw.  In  the  same  sense, 
Mark  uses  it  another  time,  vi.  52;  and  in  vii.  14,  he  employs  it  to 
express  "realize,  bring  home  to  oneself." 

The  meaning  of  Lk.  ii.  50  will  be  treated  in  the  next  chapter. 
In  Lk.  xviii.  34,  cuvtyyii  is  identified  with  yiYvwcxw  and  seems  to 
bear  the  signification  "to  realize  the  contents,  or  see  the  whole 
bearings  of  a  saying."  Again  in  Lk.  viii.  10,  ytYvwaxo)  is  used 
synonymously  with  auvfyyu;  here  as  well  as  in  Acts  xxviii.  27,  29; 
Mtt.  xiii.  14,  15;  and  Mk.  iv.  12;  this  latter  verb  is  employed  to 
translate  the  Hebrew  verb  pa  of  Is.  vi.  9,  10  (rendered  in  Jn.  xii. 
40,  by  volw),  and  in  these  passages  auvfrj^t  has  the  force  of  "to  be 
convinced  of  a  thing."  We  find  our  verb  closely  connected  with 
vouq,  the  intellect,  in  Lk.  xxiv.  45,  and  here  means  to  have  a  proper 
insight  into,  to  rightly  interpret.  Twice  in  Ac.  vii.  25,  this  verb  we 
are  considering  is  used  in  the  sense  of  to  have  sufficient  insight  or 
foresight  so  as  to  know. 

St.  Paul  uses  cuvdq^i  in  Rom.  iii.  11,  to  translate  fc»jf  of 
Ps.  liii.  3,  with  the  meaning  to  be  possessed  of  or  convinced  by 
spiritual  knowledge.  In  Rom.  xv.  21,  he  uses  it  to  translate  pi 
of  Is.  Iii.  15,  with  the  meaning  to  be  convinced  or  believe  in.  We 
have  the  sentence  ^  YfveaOe  &ppove<;,  dXkb  cjuv(sts  t(  t6  OiXiQiia 
tou  Kup(ou,  in  Eph.  v.  17;  the  last  part  is  opposed  to,  &ppovs<;, 
imprudent,  and  means,  to  realize  and  try  to  live  up  to,  what  is  the 
will  of  God;  so  that  here  auvfym  contains  a  reference  to  action. 
Also  in  2  Cor.  12  auvfir^t  has  a  reference  to  action  and  means  to  be 
prudent.  2uvst6<;  is  used  in  Mtt.  xi.  25,  Ac.  x.  21,  1  Cor.  i.  19,  in 
sense  of  worldly  wise,  yet  in  Ac.  xiii.  7,  in  sense  of  spiritually  wise. 
'AauveToq  is  used  in  Mtt.  xv.  16,  and  Mk.  vii.  18  with  meaning, 
without  understanding;  in  Rom.  i.  14,  and  22,  it  has  meaning  of 
spiritually  foolish.  In  Rom.  i.  31,  this  word  is  used  for  one  who 
has  a  sinful  lack  of  spiritual  knowledge  and  in  Rom.  x.  19,  without 
proper  spiritual  knowledge. 

As  to  the  noun  a6veat<;  outside  of  Lk.  ii.  47,  it  is  found  six  times 
in  the  New  Testament.  Only  once,  Ephes.  iii.  4,  it  means  knowl- 
edge; all  other  times,  understanding.  Twice,  understanding  in 
general,  Col.  i.  9;  Mk.  xii.  33  (by  metonymy,  mind)  twice,  spiritual 
understanding  or  insight,  Col.  ii.  2;  2  Tim.  ii.  7,  and  once  worldly 
understanding,  intelligence,  1  Cor.  i.  19. 


THE  SCENE  AMONG  THE  DOCTORS  123 

The  New  Testament  usage  would  create  the  presumption  that 
in  Luke  ii.  47,  a u vests  has  the  meaning  of  understanding.  The 
fact  that  it  is  mentioned  that  the  Child  was  found  hearing  and 
asking  questions  and  the  fact  that  auvsai^  is  connected  with 
"answers,"  is  proof  enough  that  this  word  is  not  to  be  taken  as 
prudence  (namely,  containing  a  reference  to  action),  and  would 
indicate  that  the  meaning  is  either  wisdom  or  knowledge  or  un- 
derstanding. In  a  few  verses  previous,  verse  40,  and  a  few  verses 
subsequent,  verse  52,  St.  Luke  uses  90?fa  to  signify  "wisdom." 
The  combination  i%\  Tfj  guvIjsi  xal  xat<;  acicoxptasatv  would  indi- 
cate that  auveatg  here  means  understanding,  that  is,  insight,  dis- 
cernment, intelligence  (in  primary  sense,  to  read  between),  which 
amazed  the  doctors  as  well  as  the  product  of  this  insight  or  dis- 
cernment, the  answers.1 

Now  the  question  is,  of  what  kind  was  this  discernment  or 
combinative  insight  which  the  Boy  Jesus  displayed?  Was  it  or- 
dinary, was  it  remarkable,  or  was  it  more  than  remarkable?  In 
the  Gospel  narrative,  understanding  is  not  qualified  by  an  ad- 
jective, but  it  is  stated  that  the  Boy's  understanding  (or  insight) 
and  His  answers  produced  an  effect  which  of  course  reflects  the 
cause. 

First  of  all  there  is  a  little  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  general 
meaning  of  the  passage  under  consideration.  The  phrase  xdcvTe? 
o!dxouovTS<;  is  very  general,  referring  to  all  who  heard  Him;  of 
them  the  verb  ££texavT0  is  predicated.  As  to  v.<xl  ?86vts<;  aik&v.  .  . 
Campbell  tried  to  make  this  phrase  refer  to  the  bystanders.  He 
constructed  the  sentence  this  way,  "and  all  who  heard  Him  were 
astonished,  but  they  who  saw  Him  were  amazed  at  His  under- 
standing and  His  answers."  2  He  admits  that  the  text  is  sus- 
ceptible of  the  common  interpretation,  and  indeed  his  view  has 
had  very  few  followers.  It  would  require  a  gratuitous  transposi- 
tion of  the  text,  and  the  construction  of  the  sentences  beginning 
with  the  verb  ££(<jTavuo  gives  the  impression  that  the  phrase 
which  it  covers  is,  as  it  were,  parenthetical,  after  which  Luke 

1  It  is  also  the  view  of  most  scholars.  Cremer  (Biblisch.  Theol.  Worterbuch  de 
ntl.  Gracitat.,  501).  Preuschen  (Vollstandiges  Handworterbuch  zu  den  Schriften 
des  n.  T.,  1059).  Vincent  (Word  Studies,  I.  278).  Edersheim  (The  Life  and 
Times  of  J.  (new  edit.)  1,247,  and  note).  Carr  (Gospel  St.  Luke,  44). 

2  The  Four  Gospels,  ad  loc.,  p.  116. 


124     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

continued  his  narrative,  *al  SB6vts<;,  referring  back  to  the  subject 
of  e5pov  (vs.  46)  which  was  mentioned  in  vs.  43,  o\  yovsT?. 

Now,  there  are  two  different  verbs  used:  $£{<jtocvto  to  express 
the  emotions  of  all  who  heard  the  Boy  Jesus,  at  His  understand- 
ing and  His  answers,  and  l^exXay-qaav,  to  describe  the  feelings  of 
the  parents  coming  on  the  scene.  We  shall  have  to  investigate 
the  usages  of  these  words  in  the  New  Testament  before  we  can 
decide  what  are  their  exact  meanings  or  whether  they  are  syn- 
onymous. By  having  a  correct  idea  concerning  the  signification 
of  these  words,  we  shall  be  able  to  form  a  correct  idea  of  the  un- 
derstanding and  the  answers  of  the  Boy  Jesus. 

First  as  to  i^faxavTO  which  is  used  of  all  those  hearing  Him. 
In  one  case,  Mk.  iii.  21,  this  verb  is  used  in  a  very  strong  sense  and 
seems  to  mean,  to  be  out  of  one's  senses,  to  be  beside  oneself  — 
the  literal  meaning,  as  in  the  parallel  passage  John  (x.  20),  has 
(xa(v£Tac.  In  a  very  strong  sense,  too,  it  seems  to  be  used  in  2  Cor. 
v.  13,  but  here  the  meaning  is  not  agreed  upon.  In  all  other  New 
Testament  instances,  i^i^wi  represents  the  state  of  mind  of 
persons  in  the  presence  of  miraculous  inexplicable  events.  In  the 
active  transitive  it  is  thrice  used  by  St.  Luke  to  describe  the  effect 
of  a  wonderful  occurrence,  namely,  twice  (Ac.  viii.  9  and  11),  the 
effect  of  the  sorceries  of  Simon  Magus  on  the  people  (miracles  for 
them),  and  once  (Lk.  xxiv.  22),  the  effect  on  the  downcast  disciples 
of  the  women's  account  that  they  saw  at  the  tomb  of  the  Crucified 
a  vision  of  angels  who  said  He  was  alive.  The  active  second  aorist 
intransitive  form  of  the  verb  is  employed  by  Mark,  namely  in  v.  42, 
to  express  the  effect,  on  those  who  witnessed  it,  of  the  wonderful 
miracle  of  the  raising  to  life  of  Jairus'  daughter,  and  thrice  by  Luke, 
namely,  once  in  his  Gospel  (viii.  55)  to  describe  the  effect  just 
mentioned  (he  does  not  add  ixaxaast  [LeydX-fi  as  is  found  in  Mark 
and  we  can  easily  give  the  former  more  credit  for  knowing  the 
value  of  Greek  words),  and  twice  in  his  Acts,  in  x.  45,  to  depict  the 
emotions  of  the  Jews  who  were  present  when  the  Holy  Ghost  came 
upon  Gentiles  —  indeed  wonderful  and  inexplicable  to  them,  and 
in  xii.  16,  to  depict  the  emotions  caused  by  Peter's  sudden  appear- 
ance after  his  miraculous  delivery  from  prison. 

The  imperfect  middle  of  iiiwq^i  (as  in  Lk.  ii.  47)  is  found 
once  in  Mtt.  xii.  23  to  represent  the  state  of  mind  of  the  crowd  who 
witnessed  the  curing  of  one  possessed  of  a  blind  and  dumb  devil, 
and  twice  in  Mark,  namely,  in  ii.  12,  to  express  the  effect  of  the 


THE  SCENE  AMONG  THE  DOCTORS  125 

cure  of  the  man  sick  with  the  palsy,  in  vi.  51,  to  describe  the  feelings 
of  the  Apostles  at  the  double  miracle  of  Christ  walking  upon  the 
water  and  His  calming  the  tempest. 

Likewise,  in  this  same  form,  this  verb  is  used  by  Luke  four  times 
outside  of  ii.  47,  namely,  Ac.  ii.  7,  and  12,  to  signify  the  state  of 
mind  of  those  Jews  from  every  country  under  the  sun  who  heard 
the  Apostles  speak  different  languages  at  once;  Ac.  viii.  13,  to 
describe  the  feelings  of  Simon,  magician,  as  he  was,  at  seeing 
"the  miracles  and  great  works"  of  Philip,  and  in  Ac.  ix.  21,  to 
express  the  emotions  of  the  Jews  of  Damascus,  also  confronted  by 
a  miracle  of  the  moral  order,  namely,  when  they  heard  Paul, 
previously  the  fanatic  persecutor,  preach  that  Christ  is  the  Son 
of  God. 

So  that,  the  verb  {£tanQiM  expresses  the  feelings  of  those  who 
are  brought  face  to  face  with  a  miraculous,  inexplicable  occur- 
rence in  every  New  Testament  passage  in  which  it  is  used  outside 
of  Mark  iii.  21;  2  Cor.  v.  13,  where  it  has  a  much  stronger  sig- 
nification. Is  there  any  reason  why  we  should  not  adopt  the 
same  meaning  for  the  verb  in  Luke  ii.  47?  We  do  not  see  any. 
Luke  unhesitatingly  uses  the  verb  here  of  those  who  heard  the 
Boy  Jesus,  as  he  uses  it  (unqualified)  concerning  those  who  were 
present  at  the  raising  to  life  of  Jairus'  daughter.  At  least,  we 
cannot  see  any  reason  why  this  verb  in  ii.  47  does  not  express  the 
same  degree  of  astonishment  and  bewilderment  as  in  the  cases 
where  this  Third  Evangelist  uses  the  very  same  form:  when  the 
Jews  witnessed  the  miracle  of  tongues,  or  when  Simon  Magus 
saw  the  great  miracles  of  Philip,  or  when  the  Jews  of  Damascus 
were  confronted  with  the  miraculous  change  in  Paul.  According 
to  the  New  Testament  usage,  therefore,  and  according  to  the  use 
of  the  writer  of  the  Third  Gospel,  this  verb  !££<jtczvto  predicated  of 
those  standing  around  the  twelve-year-old  Jesus,  should  repre- 
sent, on  their  part,  such  emotions  and  feelings  as  are  emitted 
by  those  who  are  in  front  of  a  miraculous  inexplicable  occur- 
rence.1 

What  caused  these  feelings?     The  Boy's  understanding  and 

1  This  agrees  with  the  meanings  given  by  Knabenbauer  (Comment,  ad  loc.,  p. 
144) :"  quasi  extasi  capti  et  sui  prae  obstuperfactionejam  non  compotes"  ;Preuschen, 
Op.  cit.,  404,  "kamen  aussersich";  Plummer  (Comment,  ad  loc.,  p.  76),  this  is 
"a  strong  word  expressing  great  amazement." 


126     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

answers.  Keeping  the  proportion  of  effect  to  cause,  we  must  say- 
that  to  cause  the  degree  of  astonishment  expressed  by  ^((jtocvto 
Christ's  insight  and  answers  were  miraculous  and  inexplicable  as 
far  as  "all  those  hearing  Him"  were  concerned.  So  that  in  an- 
swering our  inquiry,  as  to  what  kind  were  the  understanding  and 
the  answers  of  the  youthful  Nazarene,  from  a  study  of  the  word 
used  to  express  the  effect  on  the  audience  who  were  no  less  than 
the  learned  Jurists  of  Jerusalem,  we  are  brought  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  talents  displayed  were  most  extraordinary  and  in- 
explicable, indeed  (New  Testament  usage  leads  us  to  say),  mirac- 
ulous. 

We  have  another  opportunity  of  endeavoring  to  ascertain 
what  was  the  nature  of  His  actions  and  His  displayed  ability 
from  a  word  expressing  wonder  applied  to  the  parents  coming  on 
the  scene,  who,  it  would  seem,  are  not  included  under  the  expres- 
sion, iSforovfo.  A  different  word,  ^exXayiqaav  (48)  is  used  to 
express  the  wonder  of  the  parents,  and  their  wonder  was  not  be- 
cause of  "hearing  Him,"  but  because  of  "seeing  Him,"  hence 
because  of  His  position  among  the  Doctors,  of  what  He  was 
doing,  and,  it  would  seem,  of  the  effect  He  was  causing,  that  is, 
taking  the  passage  literally.  As  to  this  word  ££siuXa*j"r](jav,  its 
literal  meaning,  as  Warfield  points  out,1  is  "to  be  struck  out  (of 
the  senses)  by  a  blow."  An  examination  of  its  usage  reveals  the 
following : 

Of  the  twelve  times  this  word  is  used  in  the  New  Testament, 
six  times  it  has  for  object  the  doctrine  (8t8ax^)  of  Christ:  Mat- 
thew vii.  28;  Mark  i.  22;  Luke  iv.  32;  Matthew  xxii.  33;  Mark 
ix.  18;  Acts  xiii.  12;  twice  the  emotions  depicted  were  on  ac- 
count of  a  strange  inexplicable  saying  of  Christ;  Matthew  xix. 
25 ;  Mark  x.  26,  and  two  other  times  the  effect  which  it  expresses 
was  caused  by  the  wisdom  and  miracles  of  Jesus;  Matthew  xiii. 
54;  Mark  vi.  2  (where  it  means  "perplexed");  three  times,  Mat- 
thew xix.  25;  Mark  x.  26;  Mark  vii.  37  it  is  qualified  with  a 
strong  adverb  to  express  very  strong  emotions,  from  which  fact  it 
is  legitimate  to  infer  that  the  verb  itself  would  not  express  these 
feelings.  So  that  we  can  conclude  that  according  to  the  New 
Testament  usage  of  the  word,  it  signifies  amazement  or  per- 
1  Astonishment,  HDG  I.  131. 


THE  SCENE  AMONG  THE  DOCTORS  127 

plexity,  very  great,  but,  it  would  seem,  not  always  exceedingly 
great. 

Coming  back  to  the  verb  as  used  in  Luke  ii.  47,  what  mean- 
ing has  it  here?  It  is  used  of  the  "parents"  coming  on  the  scene 
where  Christ  is  sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  Doctors,  who  in  their 
looks  and  bearing  were  wearing  an  air  of  stupefaction  and  great 
amazement  at  His  intelligence  and  answers.  This  meaning,  great 
wonder,  that  £xxXif]cr<jo[Aai  has  in  every  other  passage  of  the  New 
Testament,  seems  to  suit  also  this  passage.  This  verb,  however, 
would  seem  not  to  express  the  same  degree  of  wonder  and  bewil- 
derment as  £  Start] (it  used  of  the  Doctors,  which  fact  may  account 
for  the  reason  why  St.  Luke  used  different  words,  for  as  we  have 
seen  ££tat)[j.t  is  always  used  to  describe  the  emotions  resulting  from 
the  performance  of  a  miracle  and  sometimes  from  a  very  great 
miracle,  whereas,  whenever  IxTuXtjaao^oct  is  used  to  express  very 
strong  feelings  a  qualifying  adverb  is  added,  seemingly  to  give  it 
strength.1  The  Doctors  were  stupefied  beyond  measure,  the  par- 
ents were  greatly  astonished,  rather  were  greatly  surprised,  be- 
cause, for  the  only  time  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  used  the 
first  aorist  of  the  verb,  which  brings  out  the  suddenness  and  non- 
continuity  of  the  wonder,  especially,  and  all  the  more  so,  since 
the  verb  of  itself  has  the  idea  of  suddenness  of  access  and  lack  of 
continuity.2 

What  was  it  at  which  the  parents  were  greatly  surprised  or 
awe-struck?  The  text  does  not  say  that  hearing  Him  they  won- 
dered or  that  they  wondered  at  His  intelligence  and  His  answers, 
but  "seeing  Him  they  wondered."  What  was  He  doing  when 
they  saw  Him?  Sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  Doctors  hearing  and 
interrogating  them  and  stupefying  them  by  His  combinative  in- 
sight and  answers.     If  there  was  nothing  extraordinary  about 

1  What  Warfield  intimates  (HDG  I.  47,  48),  what  Nebe  (Kindheits  Geschichte 
. . .  408)  states,  and  what  Power  (in  art.  in  IthQ  VII  (1912)  455)  says,  that 
ePeir\6.yri<rap  is  a  good  deal  stronger  than  e^icrraPTo  is  so  according  to  the  uses 
of  the  classics  but  does  not  seem  so  according  to  New  Testament  usage.  Cf.  what 
Erasmus  writes  (Biblia  Critica,  VI.  275).  Farmer  (HDG  I.  227,  note)  supports 
our  view  that  the  latter  verb  "may  be  the  weaker  of  the  two"  for  the  reason  that 
we  have  assigned,  that  in  Mtt.  xix.  25;  Mk.  x.  26;  vii.  37,  it  needs  an  adverb  to 
strengthen  it. 

2  In  giving  the  meaning  of  this  word  in  the  New  Test.  Warfield  mentions  that 
it  contains  the  element  of  "alarm,"  that  it  signifies  a  sudden  access  of  fear,  to  be 
"awestruck,"  HDG  I.  48. 


128     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Him,  if  He  was  among  the  Doctors  in  the  mien  and  posture  of 
any  ordinary  Jewish  boy  who  was  there  to  listen  to  and  be  in- 
structed by  the  learned  Rabbis,  or,  if  "seeing  Him,"  is  taken  as 
referring  to  the  effect  He  was  causing,  if  this  was  not  great,  aris- 
ing from  His  "intelligence  and  answers,"  why  should  Mary  and 
Joseph  greatly  wonder?  In  this  assumption  we  could  not  explain 
this  statement  of  St.  Luke.  Their  surprise  and  wonder  makes 
the  extraordinary  character  of  Jesus'  action  stand  out  in  bold 
relief;  they  were  His  parents  who  knew  His  everyday  actions  and 
who  knew  the  exact  amount  of  education  He  had  received,  if  any; 
indeed,  if  He  had  learned  to  read  they  had  helped  Him  to  do  so. 
This  being  the  case,  then,  from  the  fact  that  they  were  struck 
with  surprise  and  wonderment  at  the  scene  that  met  their  eyes, 
we  must  infer  that  their  Son's  action  was  most  extraordinary;  a 
display  of  natural  talents  no  matter  how  brilliant,  no  matter  how 
exceptional,  would  seem  not  to  explain  the  situation,  for  the 
Son's  qualification  could  not  have  escaped  the  notice  of  the  par- 
ents. 

2.    EXPLANATION   OF   LUKE   ii.   46 

The  parents  were  greatly  surprised  when  they  saw  their  Son ; 
verse  46,  to  which  we  now  return  to  examine,  states  that  they  found 
Him  "sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  Doctors,  hearing  and  question- 
ing them."  This  verse,  as  we  said  above,  is  to  be  explained  in 
the  light  of  the  verse  which  follows,  wherein  is  described  the  ef- 
fect produced.  "Sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  Doctors,"  whether  He 
was  among  the  learned  Rabbis  as  a  disciple,  or  whether  He  oc- 
cupied the  place  of  one  of  them,  is  not  made  clear  in  the  text,  nor 
is  it  agreed  upon  among  scholars.1 

1  First  as  to  the  question,  were  the  Doctors  also  sitting,  John  Lightfoot  had 
pointed  out  that  from  Moses  to  Gamaliel,  the  Rabbis  instructed  while  standing, 
but  from  the  latter 's  death  they  sat  (Horae  Heb.  48).  This  view,  says  Schiirer,  is 
only  "according  to  later  Talmudic  tradition,"  and  he  holds  that  the  custom  was  for 
the  pupil  to  sit  upon  the  ground  and  the  teacher  in  an  elevated  place  (Hist,  of  Jew. 
People,  Div.  II.,  v.  II.,  p.  326  and  note).  The  matter  had  been  previously  stated 
by  Wetstein.  This  view  is  held  by  many:  Hausrath  (History  of  N.  T.  T.  I.  90), 
Felten  (Ntl.  Zeitgesch.  I.  345).  In  the  second  place,  what  is  the  meaning  of  "  sitting 
in  the  midst  of  the  Doctors"  or  rather  what  is  the  force  of  "in  the  midst  of"  kv  nkcru>? 
In  Lk.  xxii.  27,  it  means  "among"  and  in  Ac.  iv.  7  it  signifies  presence  in  a  central 
conspicuous  position.  The  fact  that  Luke  writes  that  Jesus  was  in  the  midst  of  the 
Doctors  and  not  of  the  listeners,  added  to  the  fact  of  the  "surprise"  to  the  parents 


THE  SCENE  AMONG  THE  DOCTORS  129 

"Hearing  and  asking  questions."  Is  not  hearing  emphasized 
by  being  placed  first?  And  is  not  this  phrase  written  for  the  pur- 
pose of  drawing  attention  to  the  fact  that  Christ  was  among 
the  Doctors  of  Jerusalem  to  obtain  information  impelled  by  a 
sense  of  His  own  ignorance  and  a  thirst  for  knowledge?  This  is 
not  only  a  possible  interpretation,  but  is  the  view  of  a  number  of 
scholars.1 

Let  us  first  take  up  the  last  part  of  the  phrase,  "asking  ques- 
tions." The  present  participle  of  the  verb  ^TuepWTao)  has  the  force 
of  not  merely  asking  a  question,  but  asking  questions.  This  verb 
is  sometimes  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  signify  the  asking  of 
a  captious  question,  e.g.,  Matthew  xii.  10;  xxii.  35;  Luke  xx.  40. 
More  than  this,  in  John  xvi.  30,  to  ask  (£pa)T<jc)  has  the  meaning 
of  "to  teach."     In  what  sense  is  the  verb  used  in  Luke  ii.  46, 

coming  on  the  scene,  led  many  to  understand  that  Christ  was  in  the  place  of  the 
Doctors.  On  the  other  hand  the  fact  that  the  Boy  was  "hearing"  and  "asking 
questions"  has  led  others  to  hold  He  was  among  the  Doctors  in  the  role  of  a  disciple. 
That  He  was  given  a  place  amongst  the  admiring  Doctors  is  held  by  Bossuet 
(Elevations  sur  les  Myst.  S.  XX.  4,  p.  337),  Trollope  (Analecta  Theologica,  485), 
Schleiermacher  (Das  Leben  J.  . . .  81),  Tholuck  (Die  Glaubwtirdigkeit  der 
Evang.  216),  Ewald  (History  of  Isr.  V.  188),  Ellicott  (Historical  lectures,  95), 
Whitefoord  (Exp.  ser.  v.  II.  69-70).  Matt.  Henry  (Gospel  of  Luke,  ad  loc.,  350), 
Picard  (La  Transcendance  de  J.  C,  105),  Power  (Who  were  they,  etc.,  IthQ  VII 
(1912)  455),  Strauss  (although  denying  historicity  of  the  account,  Life  of  J.,  193). 
On  the  contrary,  the  following  hold  that  Jesus  was  among  the  Doctors  in  the  rdle 
of  a  disciple:  Maldonatus  (Comment,  in  Quat.  Evang.  II.  122),  Cornelius  a  Lapide 
(Comm.  ad  loc.,  transl.,  132),  Menochius  (Totius  S.  Script.  Comment,  ad  loc.), 
Lucas  (Annotationes,  etc.,  ad  loc),  Natalis  Alexander  (Expositio  litteralis  et  moralis 
S.  Evang.  IL,  p.  137),  Patritius  (De  Evang.  III.,  p.  411);  in  fact,  most  present-day 
writers  take  this  view.  Yet  Lagrange  (fivangile  selon  S.  Luc,  95)  points  out, 
what  seems  to  have  been  overlooked,  that  Christ  was  not  among  a  group  of  disciples, 
for  then  He  would  have  had  only  one  master. 

1  Here  are  the  express  statements  of  some  of  them.  O.  Holtzmann  refers  to  the 
Boy  as  "consumed  by  a  thirst  for  knowledge"  (Life  of  Jesus,  100,  note).  Olshausen 
points  to  Christ's  "receptivity"  and  states  (what  is  frequently  quoted)  "an  in- 
structing demonstrating  child  would  be  a  contradiction  which  the  God  of  order 
could  not  possibly  have  placed  in  the  world"  (Comment,  on  Gosp.  I.  151).  Like- 
wise, H.  Holtzmann  says  that  the  Boy  "is  to  be  imagined  as  searching  and  asking, 
not  as  teaching  and  preaching"  (Hand-Comment.,  51).  Kent  contends  that  Jesus 
improved  this  opportunity  to  gain  satisfactory  answers  to  the  many  questions  that 
were  already  stirring  in  His  mind  (The  Life  and  Teachings  of  J.,  53).  Keim, 
"There  is  no  question  of  a  superior  wisdom  that  could  brook  no  further  instruction" 
(Jesus  of  Naz.  II.  135).  Reville  thinks  that  Christ's  ingenuity  showed  itself  in  the 
"idee  naive  qu'il  se  fait  de  la  science  profonde  de  ses  docteurs"  (Jesus  de  Naz., 
411).  Doderlein  holds,  "He  wished  to  learn  what  He  did  not  yet  know"  (The 
learning  of  the  Boy,  Think.  Ill  (1893)  173).  Plummer  says  that  Christ  went 
through  the  form  of  asking  questions  because  of  "ignorance"  (The  Advance  of 
Christ,  etc.,  Exp.  IV.  ser.  vol.  4  (1901)  4;  Comment..  76) ;  cf .  Adeny,  St.  Luke, 
155,  etc. 


130     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

asking  for  information's  sake  or  asking  captious  questions?  One 
thing  is  certain,  if  there  is  question  here  of  mere  asking  questions 
to  obtain  information,  we  cannot  explain  verse  47,  namely,  we 
cannot  explain  the  very  strong  word  iJjfoTavxo —  a  verb  used  by 
Luke  and  the  other  writers  of  the  New  Testament  always  in  con- 
nection with  a  miraculous  and  marvelous  occurrence,  nor  can  we 
explain  His  intelligence,  which  must  be  in  proportion  to  the  effect 
caused. 

We  cannot  say  that  previously  He  had  been  giving  answers 
and  displaying  intelligence,  but  when  the  parents  came  on  the 
scene,  He  was  merely  hearing  and  questioning.  They  found  Him 
"hearing  and  questioning,"  and  "all  those  hearing  Him  were  in 
amazement  at  His  intelligence  and  His  answers.  He  could  not  be 
listening  and  asking  questions  at  the  one  time;  nor  at  the  same 
time  was  He  asking  questions  and  giving  answers.  The  text  does 
not  say  precisely  that  the  Doctors  were  stupefied  at  His  questions 
but  at  His  intelligence  and  His  answers.  This  might  mean  either 
the  intelligence  displayed  by  His  questions  and  His  answers,  or 
the  intelligence  of  His  questions,  besides  this,  His  answers,  or 
His  intelligence  as  seen  from  His  answers  alone,  i.e.,  His  intelli- 
gent answers,  which  seems  preferable.  But  must  not  His  intelli- 
gence have  also  appeared  in  His  questions?  As  Origen  remarks, 
"Ex  uno  quippe  doctrinae  fonte  manet  et  interrogare  et  respon- 
dere  sapienter:  et  ejusdem  scientiae  est  scire  quid  interroges 
quidve  respondeas.  Oportuit  primum  Salvatorem  eruditae  inter- 
rogations magistrum  fieri,  ut  postea  interrogationibus  respon- 
deat.1 In  another  place,  he  explains  Christ's  procedure:  "In- 
terrogabat  magistros  et  quia  respondere  non  poterant,  ipse  his, 
de  quibus  interrogaverat,  respondebat.  .  .  .  Interdum  interro- 
gat  Jesus,  interdum  respondet,  sicut  supra  diximus.  Quamquam 
mirabilis  ejus  interrogatio  sit,  tamen  multo  mirabilior  est  re- 
sponsio.,,  2  This  explains  the  text  very  well.  In  the  text  it  is  not 
only  said  that  the  Doctors  were  amazed  at  His  understanding  and 
His  answers;  but  it  is  also  said  that  the  Boy  asked  questions. 
Now,  is  it  not  likely  that  He  who  showed  such  miraculous  com- 
binative insight,  asked  questions  that  were  intended  to  draw  out 

1  Horn.  XIX.  in  Luc,  M.PG  XIII.  1850. 

2  Id.,  1848. 


THE  SCENE  AMONG  THE  DOCTORS  131 

the  Doctors  and  elicit  from  them  queries  which  He  could  wonder- 
fully answer?  The  questions  themselves,  although  wisely  selected, 
are  not  mentioned  as  being  wondered  at,  which  is  true  to  life,  for 
this  reason  that,  although  great  combinative  insight  is  required 
for  such  questions,1  yet  not  in  the  deep  unsuspected  question, 
but  in  the  clear  witty  reply,  is  it  seen  in  its  dazzling  brightness. 

This  mode  of  procedure  would  correspond  to  Christ's  usual 
way  of  teaching,  as  when  the  Pharisees  were  watching  Him  to 
see  if  He  would  heal  on  the  Sabbath  day,  seeing  their  thoughts, 
He  said  to  them,  "I  ask  you  a  question:  'is  it  lawful  on  the 
Sabbath  day  to  do  good  or  to  do  evil?' "  Luke  vi.  9.  This  weapon, 
the  pointed  question,  so  serviceable  in  His  after  life,  Jesus  wielded 
even  in  His  twelfth  year.2 

The  intelligence  displayed  certainly  was  most  extraordinary 
to  bewilder  these  Doctors;  and  to  express  this  bewilderment, 
Luke  not  only  uses  a  very  strong  word,  f£(oTavto,  he  also  empha- 
sizes this  word.  About  this  there  is  no  doubt,  for  he  makes  it  the 
first  word  of  the  sentence,  "and  they  were  all  amazed,  hearing 
Him."  .  .  .  The  amazement  of  the  Doctors  is  certainly  the  sali- 
ent and  striking  point  in  the  text;  in  its  light  must  everything  else 
be  explained.  The  phrase  "hearing  and  asking  questions"  seems 
to  be  emphasized  too,  and  the  "hearing"  being  given  first  seems 
to  have  special  emphasis;  so  that  in  this  we  agree  with  the  objec- 
tion advanced.  But,  if  there  is  question  here  of  an  ordinary  boy 
and  an  ordinary  action,  why  is  hearing  emphasized?    Is  it  not  to 

1  Photius  connects  "insight"  with  the  questions,  Cont.  Manich.  IV.  16,  M.PG 
CII.  212,  also  Melanchthon  says,  "est  autem  magnae  artis,  questiones  proponere" 
(in  Sermon  for  1st  Sunday  after  Epiphany,  Opera  Omnia,  XXIV.,  p.  367). 

2  This  view  has  many  supporters.  Beecher:  "His  questions  were  always  like 
spears  that  pierced  the  joints  of  the  harness.  It  seems  that  even  so  early  He  began 
to  wield  this  weapon"  (Life  of  Christ,  73).  Blunt:  "Doubtless  some  of  His  ques- 
tions would  be  of  that  searching  character  which  He  used  afterwards  to  instruct 
those  who  would  learn  from  Him  and  silence  those  who  opposed  Him"  (Comment. 
Lk.  ad  loc.).  Cajetan:  "  Monstrabat  enim  magnam  intelligentiam  .  .  .  formando 
interrogationes"  (Comment,  ad  loc.  III.  188).  Hofmeister:  Non  dubium  est  quin 
Jesus  pregnantes  questiones  Legisperitis  proposuerit  et  tales,  quae  Judaeos  ad  cogni- 
tionem  messiae  perducere  potuerint,  quas  quidem  cum  -illi  non  intelligerent  ipse 
explicuit  et  interpretatus  est  prudenter  (in  Evang.  Lucae,  212).  St.  Jerome,  "in 
Templo  senes  de  quaestionibus  legis  interrogans  magis  docet  dum  prudenter  inter- 
rogat"  (in  a  letter  to  Paulius,  M.PL  XXII.  543).  Origen:  "Interrogabat,  inquam 
magistros  non  ut  aliquid  disceret  sed  ut  interrogans  eruderet,"  and  again,  "eos  quos 
interrogare  videbatur  docuit,  in  medio  eorum  loquens,  et  quodammodo  concitabat 
eos  ad  quarenda,  quae  usque  ad  id  locorum,  utrum  scirent,  an  ignorarent,  nosse,  non 
poterant,"  Horn.  XIX.  xx.  in  Luc,  M.PG  XIII.  1851. 


132     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

be  supposed?  Why  is  it  even  mentioned  in  this  context  where 
the  greatest  emphasis  is  laid  on  the  amazement  of  the  bystanders? 
Is  not  the  impression  given  something  like  the  following?  The 
twelve-year-old  Boy  was  evidencing  such  intelligence  as  as- 
tounded those  who  spent  their  lives  in  weighty  discussions,  yet 
He  was  not  monopolizing  the  conversation;  when  the  Doctors 
had  a  mind  to  speak,  He  gave  them  an  opportunity  to  do  so,  and 
listened  attentively.  Hence  the  text  depicts  the  Boy  not  as  one 
who  is  excited  over  the  stupefaction  of  those  around  Him  which 
by  chance  He  has  caused,  but  as  a  submissive,  docile,  modest 
Boy,  one  who  has  Himself  under  control,  one  who  is  self-com- 
posed, self-conscious,  deliberate.  To  quote  Erasmus,  "Para- 
phrase," "also  the  party es  that  stode  roundeabout  .  .  .  were 
veraye  muche  astouned,  not  onely  for  respect  of  the  chylde's 
wisedome  (being  suche  as  had  not  afore  bene  hearde  of )  .  .  .  but 
also  for  the  rare  and  syngulare  sobrenesse  of  hys  countenaunce,  of 
hys  gesture,  and  of  hys  tongue,  whiche  thynges  gave  a  more  fer- 
ther  grace  of  acceptacyon  unto  hys  understandyng."  !  If  this 
soberness  and  modesty  is  emphasized,  then  there  is  emphasized  a 
very  remarkable  trait,  seldom  found  among  precocious  boys,  —  a 
trait  which  was  a  characteristic  of  Jesus  in  the  Public  Ministry. 

In  the  eyes  of  the  Doctors  the  "hearing  and  questioning"  does 
not  detract  from  the  extraordinary  character  of  the  affair,  rather, 
for  them  and  for  us,  this  rare  combination  of  modesty  and  intelli- 
gence makes  the  extraordinary  character  shine  out  all  the  more 
strongly  and  brilliantly.2 

1  Paraphrase  upon  the  Gosp.  and  Acts,  ad  loc.  fol.  XXXVII.  Cf.  also  J.  G. 
Michaelis,  Exercitatio  theol.  Phil.  op.  cit.,  268;  also  van  Doren:  Comment,  on 
Luke,  72. 

2  The  scene  has  been  interpreted  supernaturally  all  down  the  ages.  Knaben- 
bauer,  "aliquid  naturae  suae  altioris  manifestasse"  (Comment,  ad  loc,  p.  145); 
Campbell,  "Those  whose  eyesight  convinced  them  of  His  tender  age,  were  con- 
founded as  persons  who  were  witnesses  of  something  preternatural"  (Notes  on  St. 
Luke,  117);  Schottgenius,  "Professi  ergo  sunt  illo  tempore  Judaeorum  doctores, 
adesse  aliquem,  qui  ipsos  docere  posset,  et  extraordinario  isthoc  honoris  genere 
Jesu  exhibito,  se  divini  quid  apud  ipsum  deprehendere "  (Horae  Heb.  et  Talmud. 
II.  886);  Calvin  says  these  proud  Doctors  would  not  listen  to  Him,  "nisi  vis  aliqua 
divina  ipsos  coegisset"  (Opera  Omnia,  XLV.  105);  Photius,  .  .  .  <hs  kxaraalv 
re  xal  dap,(3os  avrols  <pCK66eov  ififiockeZp  .  .  .  evpiaxovat  de  irparTovra,  &nep  re  y\v 
Trp6.TT€i,v,  tixos,  rijv  acorrjpiav  tov  xoa/xov  xal  bbj~ctv  tov  I(rpai)X,  xal  6  \6yos 
7rpoa7rrJ77eiXey,Cont.Manich.,IV.  16,  M.PG  CII.  212-213;  Bede,  "Divinam  lingua 
sapientiam  proderat  .  .  .  quasi  Deus  quae  seniores  et  docti  mirantur  respondet" 
(Comment,  in  Luc,  M.P1  XCII.  350);  Leo  the  Great,  "Sedens  cum  senioribus  et 


THE  SCENE  AMONG  THE  DOCTORS  133 

In  all  sober  history,  there  is  no  parallel  to  the  account  of  the 
Boy  Jesus  in  the  midst  of  the  Doctors,  and  those  who  compare  it 
with  examples  of  precociousness  in  youthful  artists  and  genuises 
do  not  attend  to  what  is  written  in  the  text. 

On  account  of  Jesus'  preaching  during  His  Public  Ministry,  it 
is  recorded  that  His  listeners  "were  amazed  (i^sxX-rjaaovTo)  at  His 
teaching,  for  His  word  was  with  power"  (Luke  iv.  32;  cf.  Mat- 
thew vii.  28,  29;  Mark  i.  22).  Yet  St.  Luke  uses  a  stronger  word 
to  express  the  astonishment  of,  not  an  ordinary  audience,  but  the 
learned  Doctors  of  the  Temple,  in  face  of  the  "  understanding  and 
answers"  of  the  twelve-year-old  Christ;  and  he  uses  the  same 
word  to  express  the  surprise  to  the  parents  at  the  scene.  The 
question  that  came  to  men's  minds  during  His  later  years  (Mat- 
thew xiii.  54;  Mark  vi.  2)  is  of  more  consequence  in  regard  to 
His  twelfth  year:  how  came  Jesus  by  this  wisdom?  That  He 
should  display  a  wonderful,  indeed  supernatural,  understanding 
before  the  Doctors  is  a  confirmation  of  the  conclusion  that  when 
shortly  afterwards  He  uttered  His  reply  to  Mary,  He  evidenced  a 
wonderful  and  supernatural  self-consciousness. 

Before  turning  away  from  the  text,1  now  that  we  have  en- 
inter  admirantes  disputans  invenitur"  (Letter  to  Bishops  of  Sicily,  M.PL  LIV.  697); 
Theodoret,  irpoaeSpebet  t$  lepui  t^\v  'lovSalx^p  £Xeyx«  TraxvrrjTa  (M.PG LXXXIV. 
73);  Cyril  of  Alex.,  TSUrad  avpa£6p,evov  ciri  reus  epajrrjaeaiv  bird  it&vtojv  xai  reels 
AiroXoyiais  (Comment,  in  Luc.  M.PG  LXXII.  508);  Chrysostom,  rcav  diSao-x&kwv 
tXxpoupevos,  xai  5td  rrjs  kpwTrjaeus  eSoxei  davp-acrrds  elvcu  (M.PG  LIX.  130); 
Augustine  applies  to  Jesus  among  the  Doctors  the  words  of  Ps.  cxviii.  99. 
"I  have  more  understanding  than  my  teachers"  (M.PL  XXXVII.  1565); 
Augustine  also  writes  "disputabat  cum  senioribus,  et  admirabantur  super  doctrina 
ejus"  (Serm.  LI.,  M.PL  XXXVIII.  342);  a  few  lines  farther,  he  also  uses  "dispu- 
tantem."  We  have  already  quoted  Jerome;  Epiphanius,  in  reference  to  Christ's 
action,  uses  the  word  disputing  8ia\ex0rjvat,  M.PG  XLI.  500;  Tcpo<r5ia\ey6uevos 
(M.PG  XLI.  925);  he  also  says,  kpeoreev  avrovs  xai  trjT&v  p,er'  c&t&v  xai 
kl-eir\aTTOPTO  kwl  t<o  \oyaj  rrjs  x&PiTOS,  tcJj  kxTropevopkvq  ex  rod  (rrSpaTOS  avrov  and 
this  he  uses  as  an  argument  that  Christ  received  the  Logos  before  the  baptism 
(M.PG  XLI.  456);  Athanasius,  kvkxpive  wepl  tov  vopov  (M.PG  XXVI.  433);  Juven- 
cus,  "Invenit  insertum  legumque  obscura  senili  tractantem  coetu"  (Corp.  Script. 
Lat.  XXIV.  18);  quotations  from  Origen,  we  have  already  given.  Opposed  to  this 
consensus  of  the  Fathers  is  Gregory  the  Great,  who  says  Christ  Was  found  not 
teaching  but  asking;  he  even  adds,  "puer  doceri  interrogando  voluit"  (Regula, 
Past.,  III.  25,  M.PL  LXVII.  98;  cf .  in  Ezech.  i  and  ii.  3,  M.PL  LXXVI.  796;  Simeon 
Metaphrastes  also  says  Christ  did  not  teach  the  Doctors,  Comment,  ad  loc,  M.PG 
CXV.  548).  But  Gregory  only  wishes  to  point  out  that  Christ  did  this  as  an  example 
for  us. 

1  It  has  not  been  recorded  what  was  the  theme  of  the  questions  and  answers. 
Commentators  as  a  rule  suggest  either  the  Law,  or  the  Messiah,  or  paschal  topics. 
Farmer  (HDG  I.  227)  thinks  that  specimens  are  given  in  Mtt.  ii.  4-6;  Mk.  ix.  11; 
Jn.  vii.  42;  Lk.  xx.  22,  28-33.    Would  Lk.  ii.  49  itself  be  an  example? 


134     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

deavored  to  ascertain  its  exact  meaning,  we  wish  to  point  out 
how  baseless  and  purely  conjectural  are  such  opinions,  as,  for  in- 
stance, that  of  Ebrard,  that  Jesus  while  among  the  Doctors  "rec- 
ognized with  joy  His  Father's  holy  nature  and  His  own,"  1  or 
that  of  Stier,  "in  the  course  of  this  questioning,  which  is  but  the 
asking  after  Himself.  .  .  .  He  makes  the  discovery  of  Himself, 
in  the  first  consciousness,  not  yet  mature,  but  now  truly  com- 
mencing—  I  am  He!";2  or  Godet's,  that  He  learned  to  know 
more  "intimately  than  before  the  God  of  His  Father  and  His 
mother  as  His  God  and  His  Father";3  or  Edersheim's  reference 
to  His  being  "absorbed  by  the  awakening  thought  of  His  Being 
and  mission."  4  Where  in  the  Gospel  account  of  the  scene  be- 
fore the  Doctors  is  there  an  intimation  to  warrant  these  views? 
"There  is  no  evidence,"  truly  says  Plummer.6 

Neither  is  there  in  the  Gospel  narrative  of  all  that  Jesus  did  in 
the  Temple  during  the  visit  of  the  twelfth  year,  the  slightest  ref- 
erence to  any  influence  the  Temple  service  or  anything  that  hap- 
pened in  the  Temple  might  have  on  His  knowledge  and  self-con- 
sciousness. What  is  written  in  many  works  concerning  the  effect 
of  the  festal  devotions,  what  is  asserted  concerning  the  effect  of 
contact  with  the  learned  Doctors,  what  is  contended  that  during 
this  visit  Mary  for  the  first  time  informed  her  Son  of  His  Virgin 
Birth  and  its  attending  circumstances,  all  this  is  imaginative,  has 
no  foundation  in  the  text,  and  hence,  as  far  as  history  is  con- 
cerned, does  not  account  for  Christ's  self -consciousness.  The 
view  that  Jesus'  self -consciousness  arose  during  His  visit  to  the 
Temple  has  no  evidence  in  the  historical  record;  it  would  seem 
to  be  excluded.  Christ's  first  recorded  action  and  His  first  rec- 
orded words,  far  from  betraying  any  doubting  or  dawning  atti- 
tude towards  Himself,  manifest  supernatural  understanding  and 
self -consciousness.  The  origin  of  Jesus'  knowledge  and  self -con- 
sciousness must  be  sought  elsewhere  than  the  Temple  episode. 

1  Gospel  Hist.,  191. 

2  The  Words  of  the  Lord  J.,  I.  20. 

3  The  Life  of  Jesus  prior  to  His  Minist.,  Think.  (1895)  397. 

4  The  Life  and  Times  of  J.,  I.  248;  cf.  Hitchcock  (The  Self -consciousness  of  J., 
OT-NTSt  XIII  (1891)  272),  and  others. 

6  Comment.,  76. 


CHAPTER  XII 
THE  "PARENTS"  AND  THE  "SON" 

1.    THEIR  MUTUAL  ATTITUDE 

Twice  in  the  narrative  of  the  episode  (41  and  43),  Mary  and 
Joseph  are  called  the  "parents"  (yoveZ<;),  of  Jesus,  and  once  (48) 
Mary  refers  to  Joseph  as  "Thy  father"  (6  xoctyjp  <jou).  Outside 
of  those  who  knew  the  secret  of  the  Virgin  Birth  and  in  the  eyes 
of  the  Law,  from  the  very  fact  that  Jesus  was  born  of  Mary  the 
betrothed  (ii.  5)  of  Joseph  and  that  they  continued  to  live  to- 
gether, the  latter  would  be  regarded  as  father,  even  if  he  was  not 
really  so.  Luke  here  employs  the  terms  that  are  actually  used* 
"parents,"  "father,"  and  there  is  no  contradiction  to  the  account 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  in  the  previous  chapter.1  In  the  presence  of 
those  who  were  not  acquainted  with  this  mystery,  it  would  be 
very  awkward  to  use  a  term  in  reference  to  Joseph  which  would 
indicate  that  he  was  not  the  real  father.  As  St.  Jerome  writes: 
Non  quod  vere  pater  Joseph,  fuerit  Salvatoris,  sed  quod  ad 
famam  Mariae  conservandam  pater  sit  ab  omnibus  aestimatur.2 

These  "parents"  are  described  as  faithful  Jews,  each  year 
traveling  to  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  the  Pasch.  On  the  occa- 
sion of  the  twelfth  year,  after  they  had  celebrated  for  either  two 
days,  as  was  customary  for  pilgrims,  or  for  seven  days,  as  was 
prescribed  by  the  Law,  Mary  and  Joseph  set  out  for  home;  and  it 
was  only  after  they  had  gone  a  day's  journey,  and  after  institut- 
ing a  search  among  the  relatives  and  acquaintances  of  their  com- 
pany, that  they  discovered  their  Son  had  not  accompanied  them. 
How  was  He  left  behind?  Was  it  by  neglect  or  by  accident  or  by 
design  on  His  part?    St.  Luke  seems  to  excuse  the  mother  and 

1  Cf.  Gigot,  The  Virgin  Birth  in  Lk.  ii,  IthQ  VIII  (1913)  412-434. 

2  In  a  treatise  on  the  Perpetual  Virginity  of  B.  V.  M.PL  XXIII.  188.    See  other 
remarks  of  Fathers,  p.  16  ff. 

135 


136     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

foster-father  from  culpable  neglect,1  stating  that  "the  parents  did 
not  know"  (oflx  Hyvoxjocv,  vs.  43),  and  they  thought  He  was  in  the 
company  (voyitaavTe*;  hk  ctfcbv  ...  vs.  44).  From  this  fact  that 
they  did  not  make  sure  that  Jesus  was  with  them,  we  can  catch 
a  glimpse  of  their  attitude  towards  Him,  for  "this  shows,"  says 
Plummer,  "  what  confidence  they  had  in  Him,  and  how  little  they 
were  accustomed  to  watch  Him.  .  .  .  They  were  accustomed  to 
His  obedience  and  prudence  and  He  had  never  caused  them 
anxiety."  2  The  sacred  writer,  likewise,  excludes  the  view  that 
it  was  by  accident  that  the  Boy  was  left  behind,  for  he  makes  it 
clear  that  the  remaining  behind  was  deliberate  and  intentional.3 
This  is  shown  from  the  active  verb  "stayed"  or  "remained" 
(ux^sivev,  vs.  43),  is  reflected  in  Mary's  question,  "why  hast 
Thou  done  to  us  so?"  and  is  far  from  being  denied  in  Christ's 
words.  This  deliberately  separating  Himself  from  His  natural 
mother  and  foster-father  (taken  in  connection  with  other  points 
in  the  episode),  indicates  the  very  exceptional  consciousness  of 
the  twelve-year-old  Boy  and  is  an  argument  in  favor  of  our  con- 
clusion above. 

The  sorrowing  "parents"  retraced  their  steps  to  Jerusalem  in 
search  of  their  missing  Son  and  to  their  great  surprise  and  alarm 
they  stumbled  upon  a  scene  of  which  he  was  the  central  figure. 
Considering  what  these  parents  previously  knew,  their  astonish- 
ment certainly  casts  illuminating  rays  on  the  most  extraordinary 
character  of  Christ's  position  or  action.  It  might  imply  that  He 
usually  did  not  act  in  a  preternatural  manner,  but  not  necessarily 
that  He  never  did  a  preternatural  act  before. 

Jesus  being  perfectly  human  and  ordinarily  acting  in  a  human 

1  That  Mary  showed  negligence  was  held  by  Melanchthon  (Mary  sinned  "  per 
ignorantiam,"  in  Serm.  I.  Dom.  Epiph.  Opera  Omnia,  XXIV.  367),  Luther  (in 
Serm.  I.  Dom.  Epiph.  Werke,  I.  153),  Calvin  (Comm.  in  Harm.  Evang.,  Opera 
Omnia,  XLV.  106),  Erasmus  (Biblia  Critica,  VI.  276),  Strauss  (Life  of  Jesus,  192). 
This  is  said  to  be  unwarranted  by  Meyer  (Comment.  I.  343).  Early  Suarez  had 
pointed  out  that  the  Evangelist  excuses  the  parents  of  neglect  (De  Myst.  Disp.  IV. 
quest  XXVII.  art.  VI.,  n.  4,  Opera  omnia,  XIX.  60).  Also  Canisius  (Comment, 
de  Verbi  Dei  corruptelis,  II.  673-681). 

2  Comment,  ad  loc.  275;  cf.  also  Olshausen,  Comment,  on  the  Gospel,  I.  152, 
yet  previously  (p.  150)  he  says  that  Mary  "sinned"  through  "neglect." 

3  Origen  (M.PG  XIII.  1850),  and  S.  Metaphrastes  (M.PG  CXV.  547),  hold  that 
Christ  hid  from  His  parents  miraculously.  There  is  no  word  in  the  text  for  "lost" 
or  "left  behind"  often  used  in  this  connection.  The  compound  verb  occurs  only 
here  and  in  Ac.  xvii.  14. 


THE  "PARENTS"  AND  THE  "SON"  137 

manner,  the  parents  were  not  always  looking  for  supernatural 
feats  from  Him  and  supernatural  interventions  on  His  behalf;  so 
that  not  only  can  we  easily  understand  why  they  were  surprised 
on  this  occasion,1  but  also  we  can  readily  understand  how,  when 
He  was  missing,  they  sought  for  Him  and  sought  for  Him  with 
sorrow.  "Behold  Thy  father  and  I  sorrowing  have  been  seeking 
Thee."  2  When  they  could  not  find  their  treasure,  it  was  per- 
fectly human  that  apprehension  and  grief  should  take  possession 
of  them,  should  blind  them  to  the  real  facts  of  the  case,  should 
lead  them  on  in  their  sorrowful  and  anxious  search. 

However,  the  interpretation  of  Origen,3  and  after  him  Theo- 
phylact,4  Maldonatus,5  Estius,6  Cornelius  a  Lapide,7  and  Ber- 
nadini,8  that  the  "parents"  sorrowed  after  their  Child,  not  think- 
ing that  something  might  have  happened  to  Him,  but  fearful  lest 
He  had  left  them  to  go  to  others,  etc.,  is  not  excluded  by  the  text, 
and  might  have  a  foundation  in  Mary's  question,  "Son,  why  hast 
Thou  done  to  us  so?"  Of  course,  the  tone  in  which  this  was  ut- 
tered would  count  a  great  deal  in  its  understanding,  but  coming 
from  one  who  was  just  recovering  from  astonishment  at  a  preter- 
natural action  of  her  Son  (47),  from  one  who  took  care  to  pre- 
serve in  her  heart  all  that  happened  on  this  occasion  (51),  com- 
ing from  one  in  such  a  frame  of  mind,  we  can  judge  that  the  tone 
was  not  one  of  harshness  and  reprehension.9  She  draws  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  Joseph  and  she  had  been  sorrowfully  seeking 
Him,  and  in  a  motherly  way,  asks  why  He  had  done  this  to  them. 

Mark,  she  does  not  say  what  one  would  expect  a  mother  to 

1  Cf.  Lagrange:  Le  recit  de  1'enf ranee  de  Jesus,  Rb  IV  (1895)  181.  Durand, 
The  Childhood  of  J.  C,  141. 

2  "Relatives"  is  mentioned  in  Codex  Ephraemi,  Syr.  harcl.  and  Palatinus  (e). 
To  "sorrowing"  is  added  "sad"  (Xvirovpievoi,  tristes)  in  Dgr  and  the  Old  Latin 
a  d  e  ff2  g  1  q  v  got  Syr.  Cur.  Ambr.  L.  (M.PL  XVII.  364),  Pseud-August.  (Corp. 
Script.  Lat.  L.  125);  cf.  Vogels,  BZ  XI  (1913)  42. 

8  Comment.  M.PG  XIII.  1850;  cf.  Scholia  Vetera,  M.PG  CVI.  1189. 
*  Comm.  M.PG  CXXIII.  733. 
6  Comment,  ad  loc. 

6  Comment,  ad  loc. 

7  Comment,  ad  loc. 

8  Comment,  ad  loc. 

9  That  Mary  administered  a  rebuke  is  held  by  Haymo  (Serm.  for  First  Sunday 
after  Epiphany,  M.PL  CXVIII.  124),  Bonaventure  (Comment,  in  Luc,  ad  loc.) 
and  Erasmus  (cf.  Biblica  Critica,  VI.  275).  But  this  is  generally  denied,  v.  g. 
Maldonatus,  Comment,  ad  loc.  Bartmann,  Christus  ein  Gegner  des  Marienkultus? 
47. 


138    THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

say,  who  has  found  her  son  after  three  days  of  anxiety  and  solici- 
tude, namely,  "How  were  you  lost?  What  happened  to  you? 
How  did  you  fare  in  the  meantime?  Her  words,  "Why  hast  Thou 
done  to  us  so?"  would  indicate  that  at  least  when  she  was  utter- 
ing them  she  knew  that  He  had  not  been  lost  by  chance  or  acci- 
dent, for  she  credits  Him  with  deliberately  remaining  behind  and 
deliberately  doing  all  this.1  Her  words  have  about  them  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  reserve;  they  imply  that  the  Son  must  have  a 
great  reason  for  what  He  did;  they  breathe  a  certain  amount  of 
respect  and  deference  for  Him.  As  Farmer  writes,  "No  doubt 
they  were  proud  of  Him  in  their  hearts  but  Mary  thought  it 
necessary  mildly  to  chide  Him  for  having  caused  them  so  much 
anxiety.  We  say  *  chide'  as  the  nearest  expression  of  our  thought, 
but  few  parents  in  the  East  or  anywhere  else  would  speak  of  what 
they  deemed  to  be  a  child's  error  so  courteously  and  with  such  an 
absence  of  *  temper.'"  2 

As  we  referred  to  above,  no  objection  against  the  Virgin  Birth 
can  be  drawn  from  the  fact  that  she  mentions  Joseph  as 
"father."3  An  argument  in  favor  of  this  doctrine  is  found  in 
the  fact  that  it  is  Mary  who  speaks  and  not  Joseph,  in  whom,  if 
he  were  the  father,  would  repose  all  authority  according  to  Jew- 
ish custom  and  law.  To  quote  the  last  mentioned  writer:  "If 
Joseph  had  been  the  natural  father  of  Christ,  he  would  have 
spoken  to  a  son  of  that  age  at  least  in  addition  to  the  mother."  4 
The  argument  would  be  especially  strong  if  the  question  was 
asked  in  front  of  the  wondering  Doctors,  as  the  formal  words 
"Thy  father  and  I"  would  suggest. 

Mary's  plea  was  a  plea  for  parental  rights  disregarded,  and 
thus  she  began  by  addressing  Jesus  as,  t£xvov,  "child"  or  "son." 
He  does  not  deny  she  is  His  mother,  although  not  calling  her  so 
in  His  reply,  but  He  takes  up  the  word  "father"  which  she  had 

1  Cf.  Saurez,  De  Myst.  Disp.,  IV.,  quest.,  XXVII.,  art.  VI.,  n.  4,  Opera  Omnia, 
XIX.  60. 

2  HDG  I.  227-228. 

8  Or  from  the  fact  that  she  places  Joseph  before  herself  "Thy  father  and  I"; 
as  Augustine  says,  "Non  attendit  sui  uteri  dignitatem;  sed  attendit  ordinem  con- 
jugalem."  (Serm.  LI,  M.PL  XXXVIII.  343.)  The  order  is  reversed  in  a  few  ver- 
sions and  Fathers  (p.  17, 18).  The  first  person  is  put  first  in  Mtt.  ix.  14;  Jn.  x.  30; 
1  Cor.  ix.  6. 

«  HDG  I.  228. 


THE  "PARENTS"  AND  THE  "SON"  139 

used  of  Joseph  and  referred  it  to  God,  thus  correcting  her  and  re- 
calling His  Virgin  Birth.  Over  against  the  claims  of  the  earthly 
parents  He  places  the  claim  of  His  Heavenly  Parent;  the  obliga- 
tion arising  from  His  relation  to  God  binds  Him  to  the  sacrifice 
of  all  things  else,  and  this  the  parents  should  have  known  if  they 
had  reflected  on  the  information  they  already  possessed  concern- 
ing Him. 

When  Jesus  answered  first  the  latter  part  of  Mary's  question 
("Behold  Thy  Father  and  I  sorrowing  have  been  seeking  Thee"), 
by  pointing  out  that  there  was  no  reason  for  seeking  Him  at  all, 
and  then  the  first  part  ("Why  hast  Thou  done  to  us  so?")  by  re- 
calling what  they  knew,  that  He  must  be  in  the  (things)  of  His 
Father,  it  is  recorded  that  "they  did  not  understand  the  word 
that  He  spoke  to  them"  (50).  The  text  gives  the  impression, 
and  it  is  the  opinion  of  most  scholars,  that  the  non-understand- 
ing refers  to  the  parents.1 

What  is  it  that  the  parents  did  not  understand?  Is  it  that 
Christ  referred  to  God  as  His  Father?  2  The  text  does  not  state 
this,  and  if  it  was  intended  it  would  have  been  made  clear,  as,  for 
instance,  at  a  later  period  when  the  Jews  did  not  understand  that 
Christ  referred  to  God  as  His  Father,  St.  John  (viii.  27)  makes 
it  clear  that  "they  understood  not  that  He  called  God  His 
Father."  3     The  non-understanding  of  the  parents  does  not  refer 

1  It  is  not  the  opinion  of  all  scholars.  The  Catenae  Graecae  (edit.  Cramer,  p. 
27),  Geodfridus  (in  sermon  for  Sunday  after  Epiph.,  M.PL  CLXXIV.  107),  Aelredus 
(De  Jesu  Puero  Duodennis,  M.PL  CLXXXIV.  855),  and  Faber  (Comment,  ad 
loc.),  think  that  ctuToi  refers  to  the  bystanders.  Cajetan  (Comment,  ad  loc.,  torn. 
III.  189),  holds  it  refers  to  either  Joseph  or  the  bystanders  but  not  to  Mary.  Bour- 
daloue  says  it  was  Joseph  who  did  not  understand  (Sermons  pour  le  premier 
dimanche  apres  Epiph.  6.);  Power  ("Who  were  they  who  understood  not," 
IthQ  VII  (1912)  )  defends  the  contention  that  it  is  the  bystanders  who  are  meant. 
The  view  is  not  favorably  received,  cf.  Gigot,  The  Virgin  Birth  in  Lk.  ii.  IthQ  VIII 
(1913)  432. 

2  That  the  parents  did  not  understand  the  relation  to  God  expressed  by  Christ's 
words  is  the  opinion  of  most  of  the  negative  school.  Cf.  B.  Weiss,  Life  of  Christ,  I. 
283;  Zahn,  Das.  Evang.  des  Luk.  ad  loc.  The  non-understanding  of  the  parents  is 
opposed  to  the  Virgin  Birth,  thinks  Usener  (Art.,  Nativity  EB  III.  33-44).  On 
account  of  the  parent's  non-understanding,  Strauss  calls  the  whole  matter  "a 
marvelous  legend"  (Life  of  J.,  197).  Meyer  says  "It  is  altogether  incomprehensible 
how  the  words  of  Jesus  would  be  unintelligible  to  the  parents"  (Comment.  I.  346). 
Concerning  this  negative  position,  Alford  rightly  says,  "It  is  a  remarkable  instance 
of  the  blindness  of  the  Rationalistic  commentators  to  the  richness  and  debt  of 
Scripture"  (Gr.  Test.,  420). 

3  Cf.  Gigot,  The  Virgin  Birth  in  Lk.  ii.,  IthQ  VIII  (1913)  432;  Jn.  xvi.  16  is 
even  a  better  illustration. 


140     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

to  any  single  word  in  Lk.  ii.  49;  "the  word"  t6  pfj^ia  signifies 
Christ's  saying  taken  as  a  whole. 

A  possible  explanation  which  suits  the  text  and  context  is 
that  the  parents  did  not  understand  the  appropriateness  of  the 
saying.  We  have  given  already  a  summary  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment usage  of  the  word  auvdqtu.  We  have  shown  that  it  some- 
times means,  to  see  the  connection.  The  parents  did  not  under- 
stand the  connection  between  Christ's  words  and  His  remaining 
to  astound  the  Doctors  by  His  understanding.1  The  weak  point 
in  this  explanation  is  that  in  verse  50  there  is  no  reference  to  the 
scene  before  the  Doctors. 

A  better  explanation  and  one  which  is  in  keeping  with  the  use 
of  <7uv(y)[ju,  as  well  as  in  harmony  with  the  context  and  the  whole 
Gospel  narrative,  is  as  follows.  Every  word  in  Christ's  saying 
was  intelligible  to  the  parents.  In  His  words  taken  as  a  whole 
He  referred  to  a  mission.  They  understood  the  reference  to  His 
mission  but  they  did  not  realize  the  bearing  and  scope  of  this 
mission,  why  it  should  entail  sorrow,  what  should  be  the  conse- 
quences in  the  future.  To  state  it  briefly,  the  words  they  heard 
did  not  sufficiently  instruct  and  convince  their  Jewish  minds  con- 
cerning the  nature  of  Jesus'  Messianic  career. 

How  do  we  get  this  far-reaching  signification  from  the  simple 
words  ou  cuvYJxav?  We  are  going  no  further  than  New  Testament 
usage  would  guarantee.  As  was  pointed  out  according  to  the  New 
Testament,  this  verb  has  often  the  meaning  of  "realize"  (v.  g.  a 
parable),  as  Matthew  xiii.  19;  Mark  vii.  14.  It  sometimes  means 
to  see  the  bearing  or  connection  or  consequences.  A  good  example 
is  Mark  vi.  52,  namely  when  Jesus  performed  the  double  miracle 
of  walking  on  the  water  and  calming  the  tempest,  the  Apostles 
were  amazed  beyond  measure,  and  this  reason  is  added,  ou  yap 
cuvqxav  £%l  toi<;  apiot<;;  the  meaning  is  they  did  not  realize  the 
bearing  and  consequences  of  the  miracles  of  the  loaves  or  they 
would  bear  in  mind  that  Christ  could  perform  very  great  miracles. 
A  very  strong  confirmation  of  our  view  is  the  use  of  auviTQ^t  in 
Acts  vii.  25,  in  the  sense  of  "to  be  sufficiently  instructed  so  as  to 

1This  view  has  not  a  few  supporters:  Jansenius  (Comment,  ad  loc.);  Farrar 
(Life  of  Christ,  78);  Rice  (Comment,  on  S.  Luke,  59);  Ryan  (Gospels  of  the  Sun- 
days, 130);  Fillion  (fivang.  selon.  S.  Luc.,  87);  F.  Field  (Notes  on  Trans,  of  New 
Test.,  50). 


THE  "PARENTS"  AND  THE  "SON"  141 

foresee,"  but  especially  in  illustration  of  our  view  do  we  point  to 
Luke  xviii.  34,  when  the  same  Evangelist  who  wrote  ii.  50  states 
that  the  Apostles  did  not  understand  Our  Lord  saying  that  He 
must  go  up  to  Jerusalem  and  be  scourged  and  crucified.  The  non- 
understanding  of  the  parents  is  no  more  a  matter  of  surprise  than 
the  non-understanding  of  the  Apostles.  The  latter  understood 
every  word  in  the  saying  of  Jesus  that  He  must  go  up  to  Jerusalem 
and  be  scourged,  etc.,  but  the  reasons,  bearing  and  consequences, 
they  did  not  realize.  They  had  hoped  that  the  Master  would 
establish  His  kingdom  without  suffering  or  death  (Luke  xxiv.  21) ; 
and  His  expression  to  the  contrary  was  not  allowed  (naturally  or 
supernaturally)  '  to  prepare  them  for  what  was  to  come,  so  that 
when  the  fatal  day  which  He  clearly  foretold  did  come  they  were 
scandalized  in  Him.  This  is  the  force  of  the  statement  that  the 
Apostles  did  not  understand  Christ  saying  He  must  be  scourged 
and  crucified. 

Likewise,  although  every  word  in  their  Son's  saying  was  intelli- 
gible to  the  parents,  it  did  not  bring  home  to  them  the  nature  and 
the  consequences  of  the  mission  to  which  He  referred.  It  did  not 
enlighten  them  as  to  why  the  mission  of  His  Father  should  entail 
suffering  for  them,  and,  no  more  than  Simeon's  prophecy,  did  it 
prepare  them  for  what  was  to  come.  This  is  the  force  of  the 
parents  not  understanding  that  Christ  must  be  in  the  (things)  of 
His  Father  at  the  expense  of  bringing  sorrow  and  grief  to  them.2 

This  non-understanding,  as  we  have  explained  it,  was  indeed 
very  natural.  The  fact  that  it  is  mentioned  shows  the  his- 
toricity of  the  whole  account,  suggests  that  Mary  at  least  was  the 
final  author,  and  also  indicates  that  the  words  became  "intelli- 
gible" afterwards.  Yes,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Apostles  so  in  the 
case  of  the  parents,  the  unfolding  of  events  cleared  up  matters. 
Only  when  the  shadow  of  the  cross  had  passed  over  her  life  did 
the  mother  realize  what  her  Son's  mission  involved;  and  when 
giving  the  account  to  St.  Luke  or  an  intermediary  she  recalled 
that  at  the  time  they  were  uttered,  the  words  of  the  Boy  were  in- 

1  Cf.  Wright  (Gosp.  St.  Luke,  19). 

2  This  view  is  substantially  in  harmony  with  the  views  of  Maldonatus  (Comment, 
ad  loc.);  Nat.  Alexander  (Comment,  ad  loc.);  Cornelius  a  Lapide  (Comment,  ad 
loc.);  Polus  (Comment,  ad  loc.);  Canisius  (op.  cit.,  pp.  681-694);  Lagrange  (Le 
Recit  de  l'Enfance,  Rb  IV  (1895)  182);  Steinmeyer  (Die  Geschichte  der  Geburt, 
180-181);  Terrien  (La  Mere  de  Dieu.,  II.  63);  Gigot  (The  Virgin  Birth  in  Lk.  ii., 
IthQ  VIII.  (1913)  432-433);  Plummer  (Comment.,  78);  Farmer  (HDG  I.  229); 
Box  (Virgin  Birth,  107),  Bartmann  (Christus  ein  Gegner  des  Marienkultus?  52-54). 


142     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

deed  not  understood,  they  did  not  bring  home  to  her,  nor  prepare 
her  for  the  realities  which  resulted  from  His  necessity  of  His  being 
in  the  (things)  of  His  Father. 

This  non-understanding  by  those  who  should  know  all  about 
Him,  brings  out  in  bold  relief  the  mysterious  depth  of  Christ's 
prophetic  words,1  and  hence  we  have  again  in  this  reference  to 
the  attitude  of  Mary  and  Joseph,  another  reflection  of  His  most 
extraordinary  character.  This  non-understanding  is  also  evidence 
of  the  strongest  kind  that  it  was  not  the  parents  who  implanted 
in  Jesus'  heart  the  knowledge  of  His  mission  and  relation  with 
God. 

Although  the  mother  and  foster-father  did  not  realize  all  that 
their  Son's  words  implied,  His  reference  to  His  mission  and  His 
mentioning  His  true  Father  seems  to  be  enough  to  satisfy  them,  for 
far  from  there  being  any  evidence  of  their  insisting  on  and  de- 
manding another  explanation,  far  from  there  being  any  hint  that 
they  subjected  Him  to  chastisement,  far  from  there  being  any  in- 
dication that  they  considered  His  answer  trivial  and  frivolous,  in 
the  text  there  is  given  positive  proof  of  the  high  value  that  Mary 
attached  to  the  first  recorded  words  as  well  as  to  the  other  inci- 
dents of  the  episode,  namely,  Kai  $  ^tqttqp  aikou  Stexirj pet  xavxa  t<z 
pYjtiaTa  iv  Tfj  xapSt?  ocutyji;  (51).  The  word  StsTifjpst  "expresses  care- 
ful and  continual  keeping."  2  The  mother's  carefully  preserving 
"all  the  things  spoken  of"  heightens  our  appreciation  of  all  that 
happened;  it  throws  more  light  on  the  preternatural  character  of 
Christ's  action,  and  it  gives  additional  strength  and  force  to  the 
other  arguments  that  His  first  words  expressed  real  Divine  Son- 
ship.3 

A  final  reference  to  Christ  and  His  parents  and  one  which 
contains  an  epitome  of  the  nature  of  their  relation  is  given  in  the 
sentence,  "and  He  went  down  with  them  and  came  to  Nazareth 

1  On  account  of  the  non-understanding  of  the  parents,  both  Strauss  (Life  of  Jesus, 
195),  and  Loisy  (Les  fivang.  Synopt.,  383)  see  in  Christ's  words  a  declaration  of 
Messiahship.  It  certainly  .shows  that  Lk.  ii.  49  is  not  to  be  interpreted  as  a  mere 
childish  saying  and  is  a  strong  indication  that  "business"  is  to  be  understood  by 
iv  rots  tov. 

2  Plummer,  Comment,  ad  Ioc.  78. 

8  As  Origen  says,  "  Plus  aliquid  quam  homine  suspicatur,  unde  et  custodiebat 
omnia  verba  ejus  in  corde  sua,  non  quasi  pueri  qui  duodecim  esset  annorum  sed 
ejus  qui  de  Spiritu  Sancto  conceptus  fuerat"  (ad.  Ioc.  M.PG  XIII.  1852);  cf.  S. 
Metaphrasetes,  M.PG  CIX.  549. 


THE  "PARENTS"  AND  THE  "SON"  143 

and  was  subject  to  them."  The  last  phrase  reads  literally  "and 
He  was  subjecting  Himself  to  them"  (xal  rjv  6xoTaa<j6tievoq 
auTotq).  As  Edersheim  has  pointed  out,  the  present  participle 
middle  brings  out  the  "voluntariness  of  His  submission,"1  and 
as  Plummer  remarks,  "the  analytic  tense  gives  prominence  to  the 
continuance  of  the  subjection."  2  The  form  of  this  verb  excludes 
the  idea  that  Luke  wishes  to  bring  out  a  contrast  between  Christ's 
obedience  at  Nazareth  and  His  disobedience  at  Jerusalem  during 
the  memorable  visit.  Besides  it  would  be  against  the  reverential 
tone  of  the  whole  narrative.  Why  does  Luke  mention  Christ's 
subjecting  Himself,  which  would  seem  superfluous,  if  Jesus  was 
an  ordinary  boy?  The  Evangelist  is  aware  that  He  acted  in  the 
Temple  not  like  an  ordinary  boy,  he  is  aware  that  His  words  are 
not  the  words  of  an  ordinary  boy,  that  they  are  a  declaration  of 
strict  Divine  Sonship.  Realizing,  then,  what  a  great  act  of  con- 
descension it  was,  he  records  that  though  conscious  of  His  Divine 
dignity  and  nature,  Jesus  subjected  Himself  to  the  earthly  par- 
ents. Thus  the  relation  that  existed  between  them  is  fitly  de- 
scribed. Being  born  through  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
being  truly  the  Son  of  God  and  conscious  of  this  fact,  this  God-man 
did  not  owe  obedience  to  any  human  person.  When  He  subjected 
Himself  to  Mary  and  Joseph,  it  was  a  great  act  of  condescension 
on  His  part  and  a  fact  worthy  of  recording.  He  was  breaking 
no  moral  precept  if  He  did  not  obey  them,3  especially,  as  in  the 
episode,  when  He  must  be  in  the  (things)  of  His  true  and  real 
Father. 

2.    MORALITY   OF   THE   EPISODE 

As  to  the  relation  of  parents  and  children  among  the  Jews  we 
need  only  to  quote  Edersheim,  "What  Jewish  fathers  and  moth- 

1  The  Life  and  Times  of  J.,  250,  note. 

2  Comment.,  78. 

8  As  Didymus  Alex,  says  concerning  Christ's  subjection  to  His  parents :  ixcop 
8k  8ii\ov  8ti,  xal  ohx  kvkxrj,  De  Trin.  III.  20,  M.PG  XXXIX.  893.  Jerome 
writes:  Venerabatur  matrem  cujus  erat  ipse  pater,  colebat  nutricium  quern  nutrierat. 
(Epist.  cxvii.,  Corp.  Script.  Lat.,  LV.  425,  edit.  Hilberg.)  We  find  in  the  Constitu- 
tiones  Apostolicae,  "He  who  had  commanded  to  honour  our  parents,  was  Himself 
subject  to  them"  (VI.  23,  M.PG  I.  971).  Ambrose  points  out  that  Christ's  subjec- 
tion is  not  a  subjection  of  infirmity  but  of  piety;  and  deference  and  piety  are  not 
weakness  (Exp.  Evang.  Luc.  ad  loc.  Corp.  Script.  Lat.  XXXII.4,  p.  75);  cf.  Cyril 
of  Alex.  (De  Trin.,  V.,  M.PG  LXXV.  993-6). 


144     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

ers  were;  what  they  felt  towards  their  children;  and  with  what 
reverence,  affection  and  care  the  latter  returned  what  they  had 
received,  is  known  to  every  reader  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
relationship  of  father  has  its  greatest  sanction  and  embodiment 
in  that  of  God  towards  Israel;  the  tenderness  and  care  of  a 
mother  is  that  of  the  watchfulness  and  pity  of  the  Lord  over 
His  people.  The  semi-Divine  relationship  between  children  and 
parents  appears  in  the  location,  the  far  more  than  outward  duties 
which  it  implies  in  the  wording  of  the  Fifth  Commandment.  No 
punishment  more  prompt  than  that  of  its  breach  (Deut.  xxi.  18- 
21);  no  description  more  terribly  realistic  than  that  of  the  ven- 
geance which  overtakes  such  a  sin  (Prov.  xxx.  17)."  * 

Jesus  in  His  first  words  was  giving  an  answer  to  Mary's  in- 
quiry: Why  He  had  remained  in  Jerusalem  and  caused  His  par- 
ents three  days  of  intense  sorrow.  Does  the  saying  suit  the 
purpose?  Does  He  give  a  sufficient  reason  to  account  for  His 
action?  Or  must  His  action  be  considered  immoral?  Wallis  re- 
marks, "A  vague  feeling  of  dissatisfaction,  however  consciously 
subdued,  is  apt  to  rise  in  the  minds  of  many  readers,  at  what 
may  be  called  the  moral  character  of  the  episode.  In  plain  terms, 
the  ordinary  acceptation  of  the  story  makes  it  difficult  to  recog- 
nize the  dutifulness  or  the  consideration  of  our  Lord's  conduct, 
when  we  remember  His  youthfulness  and  His  acknowledged  rela- 
tion to  Joseph  and  Mary.2  On  account  of  the  "revolt  against 
paternal  authority"3  which  he  sees  in  the  episode,  Renan  con- 
demns the  narrative  as  mythical.  Martin  also  rejects  the  ac- 
count, asking,  "Is  there  not  a  touch  of  the  unfilial  in  the  tone  of 
this  reply  .  .  .  ?"  4  Certainly  for  an  ordinary  boy  of  twelve,  it 
would  be  at  least  implicit  disobedience  for  him  to  remain  behind 
after  his  parents  had  set  out  for  home,  and  thus  cause  them 
anxiety  and  sorrow,  and  ordinarily  on  finding  him  the  parents 
would  justly  chastise  their  son. 

To  give  the  reason  why  this  is  not  so  in  His  case,  to  account 
for,  to  justify  His  actions,  Jesus  merely  mentions  that,  as  they 

1  The  Life  and  Times  of  J..  I.  227. 

2  The  Father's  business,  etc.,  ExpT  ser.  2,  vol.  VII.  (1884)  20. 

3  Life  of  Jesus,  60;  cf .  Art.,  Nativity  in  E.B. 
*  The  Life  of  Jesus,  75. 


THE  "PARENTS"  AND  THE  "SON"  145 

should  know,  He  must  be  in  the  (things)  of  His  Father,  God. 
His  reason  for  not  fulfilling  the  highest  of  obligations,  obedience 
to  parents,  was  sufficient  only  in  the  explanation  that  He  held  a 
most  extraordinary  and  superhuman  relation  to  God,  in  other 
words,  the  view  of  real  Divine  Sonship  or  something  very  near  it. 
In  any  other  explanation  His  saying  would  be  "mockery,"  x  as 
Riddle  points  out,  and,  as  Felder  states,  His  action  would  be 
"immoral"; 2  His  deliberately  separating  Himself  from  His  par- 
ents without  even  informing  them,  thus  causing  them  seemingly 
unnecessary  grief  of  heart,  certainly  would  not  be  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  ethics,3  and  this  act  of  immorality  could  hardly 
be  explained.  But  for  the  Boy  Jesus,  it  was  not  an  act  of  immo- 
rality. Far  from  this  being  the  case,  He  rather  was  fulfilling  His 
filial  obligation,  He  rather  was  obeying  His  real  and  true  Father.4 
The  claims  of  this  true  Father  are  most  immediate  and  pressing, 
and,  in  comparison  with  them,  the  claims  of  Mary  and  Joseph  are 
negligible.  Carrying  out  His  Father's  will,  He  condescends  to 
obey  those  whom  He  has  given  the  privilege  of  being  His  earthly 
parents,  —  the  verb  employed,  fjv  uxoT<zaa6^.evo<;,  bringing  out 
the  voluntariness  of  the  action  —  but  when  the  Father's  will  and 
mission  which  he  must  carry  out  require,  these  parents  are  to  be 
sacrificed  now,  as  Mary  was  afterwards  sacrificed  at  the  foot  of 
the  cross. 

If  anything  short  of  a  superhuman  and  preternatural  relation 
to  God  is  expressed  by  Christ,  His  words  would  not  explain  His 
action,  neither  would  they  satisfy  His  earthly  parents.  Far  from 
the  text  giving  us  indications  that  the  parents  justly  chastised 
their  Son,  it  depicts  them  as  receiving  the  saying,  although  not 
understanding  it,  in  a  respectful,  reverential  attitude,  Mary  even 
thinking  it  worth  while  to  preserve  in  her  mind  the  whole  account 
—  sufficient  indication  that  for  the  parents,  Christ's  reply  carried 

1  Comment,  on  St.  Luke,  361.    (Gospel  .  .  .  Luke,  43.) 

2  Jesus  Christus,  I.  330. 

3  And  this  no  matter  how  strongly  one  should  feel  a  religious  vocation.  In  the 
case  of  Christ  it  is  clear  that  there  is  not  question  of  merely  a  religious  calling,  as 
he  immediately  goes  back  to  Nazareth  to  obey  His  parents. 

4  As  Bartmann  (op.  cit.,  50)  says,  "Aus  diesem  Umgange  mit  der  Gottheit 
entstanden  fur  ihn  oft  Situationen  und  Verpflichtungen,  die  in  keinem  Sittenkodex 
fur  Kinderpflichten,  gebucht  waren."  Cf.  Sylveira:  Comment,  in  Text.  Evang.,  I. 
353. 


146     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

more  than  sufficient  explanation  for  this  seeming  disobedience 
and  injustice  towards  them.1 

The  morality  of  the  episode  on  the  part  of  Christ  is  explained 
in  the  view  we  have  been  led  to  adopt  in  regard  to  the  self-con- 
sciousness He  expressed.  Any  abruptness,  any  lack  of  filial  con- 
sideration seen  in  His  action,  any  air  of  superiority  interpreted 
from  His  words,  all  would  be  explicable  and  not  unbecoming  in 
one  who  had  the  conviction  of  being  the  real  Son  of  God.  This 
knowledge  of  being  in  such  a  wonderful  relation  to  God  explains 
the  "Son's"  attitude  towards  the  "parents"  during  His  whole 
life,  namely  when  He  uttered  such  sayings  as  "What  is  that  to 
Me  and  to  thee?  "  "  Who  is  My  mother,  and  who  are  My  breth- 
ren?" He  voluntarily  subjected  Himself  to  them,  but  He  always 
made  it  clear  that  He  was  superior  to  their  claims,  that  in  His 
Divine  obligation  the  ties  of  flesh  and  blood  did  not  count.  He 
was  above  the  claims  of  the  natural;  He  had  a  supernatural  self- 
consciousness. 

How  explain  the  attitude  of  the  "parents"?  How  is  it  that 
they  were  struck  with  astonishment  at  seeing  Jesus  among  the 
Doctors?  How  explain  that  they  sought  for  Him  with  sorrow 
and  anxiety?  How  is  it  that  they  did  not  understand  His  words? 
For  the  better  understanding  we  will  examine  their  attitude  in 
its  perspective.  Mary  heard  the  angel  announce  that  she  would 
conceive  a  son  who  "shall  be  called  Son  of  the  Most  High,  and 
who  shall  reign  in  the  house  of  Jacob  forever"  (Luke  i.  31,  32; 
cf.  Matthew  i.  18,  20,  21,  23,  25),  and  although  the  angel  ex- 
plained how  this  Virgin  Birth  would  take  place,  he  did  not  inform 
her  how  the  Son's  kingdom  would  be  established,  nor  what  the 
nature  of  this  kingdom  would  be,  nor  what  it  entailed  for  Him 
and  for  her.  In  these  matters,  consequently,  she  shared  the  con- 
temporary Jewish  views.2  Knowing  the  fact  of  the  Virgin  Birth, 
knowing  her  Child  to  be  the  long-looked-for  Messiah  (Luke  i. 
35,  48),  when  the  shepherds  came  to  the  newly  born  Babe,  relat- 

1  Also  from  the  fact  that  Christ  was  sinless  we  are  obliged  "to  seek  an  expla- 
nation of  His  deportment  on  the  present  occasion,"  Wilkinson:  Concerning  J.  C, 
the  Son  of  Man,  42. 

2  Concerning  Mary's  knowledge,  see  Terrien:  La  Mere  de  Dieu,  II.  4-66,  Bart- 
mann  (op.  cit.,  21,  42,  note).  She  was  supernaturally  endowed  with  intellectual 
gifts  befitting  her  great  position  and  association. 


THE  "PARENTS"  AND  THE  "SON"  147 

ing  what  they  had  seen  and  heard,  Mary  did  not  share  the  won- 
der of  those  who  heard  these  things  "but  kept  all  these  things 
pondering  them  in  her  heart"  (Luke  ii.  18,  19). 

The  secret  of  the  Virgin  Birth  and  the  other  parts  of  the  An- 
nunciation lay  in  her  heart,  being  known  only  to  Joseph,  and 
hence  when  the  "parents"  heard  the  inspired  Simeon  proclaim 
the  Child  to  be  the  Messiah,  they  wondered,  they  marveled  at 
what  he  said  (Luke  ii.  25-33).  Neither  did  holy  Simeon's  an- 
nouncement of  the  career  of  "light"  and  "glory"  of  their  "Son" 
impress  them  in  such  a  way  as  to  influence  their  every  action,  no 
more  than  his  prophecy  that  Jesus  would  be  set  up  "for  a  sign 
which  shall  be  contradicted"  and  for  the  transpiercing  of  the 
mother's  soul  (Luke  ii.  34,  35). 

Accustomed  to  Christ's  acting  somewhat  like  an  ordinary 
child  (at  least  in  regard  to  bodily  requirements  vs.  40),  the  par- 
ents would  treat  Him  as  such  during  the  next  twelve  years  that 
rolled  by.  The  lapse  of  this  period  may  have  somewhat  weak- 
ened the  impressions  made  by  the  circumstances  of  Christ's  con- 
ception and  birth,  but  not  necessarily  weakened  the  faith  of  the 
parents.1  Their  conduct  during  the  memorable  incident  of  the 
twelfth  year  clearly  shows  that  the  facts  stored  away  in  their 
minds  were  not  kept  vividly  in  view.  They  acted  like  ordinary 
parents  on  this  occasion.  They  set  out  for  home  without  mak- 
ing sure  that  Jesus  was  with  them,  thinking  that  He  was  acting 
as  usual,  thinking  that  like  an  ordinary  boy  He  was  in  the  com- 
pany. They  expected  nothing,  and  when  they  missed  Him  they 
became  nervous  and  sought  for  Him  with  sorrow  and  anxiety. 
They  thought  of  themselves  only  as  ordinary  parents,  whose 
rights  were  to  be  respected.  They  did  not  reflect  on  the  knowl- 
edge which  they  possessed,  they  did  not  consider  that  their  Son 
tarried  behind  because  of  something  which  they  already  knew, 
His  great  relationship  to  God  and  His  special  work  for  His  Heav- 
enly Father  in  which  He  was  not  subject  to  their  jurisdiction. 
Indeed  the  last  place  where  they  looked  to  find  Him  was  the 
Temple,  searching  a  whole  day  through  the  Holy  City  before 

1  Explaining  why  Mary  did  not  "understand"  Plumptre  (Comment.,  952), 
and  Wilkinson  (Concerning  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  Man,  45,  46),  say  that  the 
lapse  of  years  dulled  the  impressions  of  the  annunciation  and  weakened  Mary's 
faith. 


148     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

going  there.  Thus  expecting  nothing,  they  were  greatly  surprised 
on  discovering  Him  "sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  doctors."  Yet 
Mary's  "trouble  overpowered  her  amazement."  *  Being  Jesus' 
true  mother,  her  motherly  heart  had  experienced  the  keenest  af- 
fliction during  the  three  days  of  searching,  and  she  could  not 
quickly  forget  this  intense  sorrow;  she  refers  to  it,  asking  her  Son 
why  He  had  done  this,  feeling  He  must  have  a  valid  reason.  She 
heard  the  Boy  giving  a  great  reason;  she  heard  Him  mentioning 
His  true  and  only  Father,  and  citing  His  obligation  to  be  taken 
up  with  God's  business  or  to  be  in  God's  house.  She  understood 
every  one  of  the  words  that  He  uttered,  but  in  these  words  there 
was  enunciated  a  policy  of  Jesus  suiting  not  only  the  present  but 
also  the  future,  and  this  policy  neither  she  nor  the  foster-father 
realized.  They  did  not  see  in  the  perspective  the  words  and  the 
occasion  that  drew  them  forth,  and  thus  did  not  understand  them 
as  the  first  fulfillment  of  Simeon's  prophecy,  as  having  themselves 
a  prophetic  signification  —  the  sword  of  sorrow  was  to  go  deeper 
into  the  mother's  heart,  all  owing  to  the  obligation  and  mission 
to  which  He  referred. 

Jesus'  subjecting  Himself  to  the  "parents,"  His  living  as  "one 
of  the  many,"  2  although  it  accustomed  the  mother  to  the  role 
of  an  ordinary  mother,  yet  did  not  make  her  lose  sight  of  the 
memorable  events  of  the  twelfth  year.  These  were  added  to  the 
circumstances  of  Jesus'  early  childhood  in  the  storehouse  of 
Mary's  heart.  Frequently  she  took  care  to  revolve  in  her  mind 
all  that  she  knew;  once  (it  is  recorded)  she  made  use  of  the  in- 
formation she  possessed,  when,  to  save  the  bridal  couple  of  Cana 
from  embarrassment,  her  charity  moved  her  to  point  out  to  her 
Son,  "they  have  no  wine"  (John  ii.  3).  Taking  the  natural  atti- 
tude of  mother,  she  asked  the  miracle,  irrespective  of  His  "hour" 
or  Divine  obligation.  The  natural  attitude  of  "mother"  is  again 
taken,  when  with  "brethren"  of  the  Lord  she  came  to  interrupt 
Him  in  His  preaching,  in  His  performing  the  Father's  business, 
and  finally  she  takes  a  true  mother's  place  standing  at  the  foot  of 
the  cross;  the  "Son"  was  fulfilling  the  obligations  of  His  mis- 
sion and  the  "mother"  was  again  a  sufferer.     What  had  been 

1  Farmer,  HDG  I.  227. 

a  Words  of  St.  Chrysostom,  Horn.  XXI..  on  St.  John,  N.P-NF  XIV.  74. 


THE  "PARENTS"  AND  THE  "SON"  149 

hinted  at  and  referred  to,  not  only  to  the  Apostles  but  also  to  the 
mother,  not  only  during  the  Public  Ministry  but  also  during  the 
Hidden  Life,  was  now  accomplished.  It  was  not  only  the  Apos- 
tles who  heeded  not  the  prophetic  warnings  of  the  Master  that 
He  must  go  the  Way  of  the  Cross,  but  also  Mary  herself  acted  as 
a  mother  generally  does  act,  paying  little  or  no  attention  to 
warnings  or  forebodings,  overlooking  prophetic  utterances  which 
could  have  prepared  her  for  what  the  sad  future  had  in  store  for 
herself  and  her  Son.  In  spite  of  His  pronouncements  of  the  obli- 
gations of  His  nature  and  mission,  she  persistently  assumed  the 
attitude  of  an  ordinary  mother.  Chrysostom,  giving  the  reason 
why  Jesus  said  "Who  is  My  mother  and  who  are  My  brethren?" 
writes,  "because  they  did  not  yet  think  rightly  of  Him,  and  she, 
because  she  had  borne  Him,  claimed  according  to  the  custom  of 
other  mothers,  to  direct  Him  in  all  things,  when  she  ought  to 
have  reverenced  and  worshiped  Him."  *  Mary's  action  bears 
about  it  all  the  marks  of  naturalness  and  historicity.2 

Indeed  when  we  compare  the  mutual  attitude  of  the  "Son" 
and  the  "parents"  we  are  struck  both  at  the  natural  mode  of  ac- 
tion of  the  "parents"  and  the  preternatural  mode  of  action  of 
the  "Son,"  at  the  natural  attitude  of  the  "parents"  and  the  pre- 
ternatural attitude  of  the  "Son."  Especially  verse  50,  "they  did 
not  understand  ..."  reflects  the  preternaturalness  of  Jesus  as 
well  as  the  naturalness  of  the  "parents."  It  was  necessary  for 
the  "Son"  to  have  acted  as  He  did,  for  to  quote  Chrysostom 
again,  "otherwise  He  could  not  have  led  up  her  thoughts  from 
His  present  lowliness  to  His  future  exaltation  had  she  expected 
that  she  should  always  be  honored  by  Him  as  by  a  son  and  not 
that  He  should  come  as  her  Master."  3 

What  an  appropriate  setting  for  the  first  recorded  words  as 
herein  interpreted  is  the  Evangelical  account  of  the  mutual  atti- 
tude of  the  "Son"  and  the  "parents."    It  was  not  they  who  in- 

1  Loc.  cit.  Christ  greatly  respected  His  mother,  for  as  Chrysostom  (op.  cit.)  says, 
"He  was  subject  to  her  and  had  forethought  of  her  at  the  very  season  of  the  cruci- 
fixion." Although  He  honored  her,  yet  "He  cared  more  for  her  soul,  and  for  the 
doing  good  to  the  many,  for  which  He  took  upon  Him  the  flesh." 

2  Sweet  (Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus  Christ,  192)  says  of  Mary,  "The  uniqueness 
of  her  experience  only  serves  to  emphasize  the  naturalness  of  the  portraiture  of  her 
character." 

8  Loc.  cit. 


150     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

stilled  into  Him  His  idea  of  Himself  or  His  mission;  they  did  not 
even  understand  Him.  What  a  contrast  between  Him  and  them; 
and  they  were  those  nearest  to  Him  in  all  human  respects,  they 
were  those  from  whom  He  received  most,  who  should  have  known 
Him  best.  How  inexplicable,  then,  appears  His  mental  attitude, 
in  other  words,  His  self-consciousness. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
THE  CHRIST  CHILD'S  "WISDOM"  AND  "GRACE" 

1.    STUDY   OF   LUKE   ii.    40   AND   52 

St.  Luke  envelops  the  narrative  of  the  Boy  Christ  in  the 
Temple  with  two  somewhat  similar  verses,  each  containing  a  ref- 
erence to  physical  growth,  wisdom  and  grace;  in  fact  these  verses 
belong  to  the  episode,  being  connected  with  it  by  Kal.  It  is 
claimed  that  here  Christ  is  represented  as  undergoing  not  only  a 
bodily  but  also  "a  normal  psychical  development"  '  and  hence 
there  is  a  serious  objection  to  our  conclusion  above. 

Verse  40  reads,  t 6  &t«at8(oyi)5£ovivxai  ixpaxaiouTo  xAT)po6^evov 
ao<p(<y,  xal  %dgnq  0eou  fjv  i%*  aifc6.  First,  as  t6  xatBfov.  In  the 
preceding  verse,  St.  Luke  finishes  the  account  of  the  Presentation 
in  the  Temple,  "according  to  the  law  of  the  Lord."  Jesus  then 
was  forty  days  old  and  this  is  why  He  is  referred  to  as  t6  xai8(ov, 
"the  child." 

Concerning  this  child,  the  Evangelist  says  "He  grew"  and 
"he  got  strong,"  2  bringing  out  the  fact  that  He  got  taller  and 
stronger  physically. 

St.  Luke  next  gives  a  phrase  in  opposition,  xAiqpou^svov 
<joq>fqc.3  The  last  word  is  taken  in  a  general  sense  of  wisdom.4 
What  is  the  meaning  of  xAiqpou^evov?  Plummer  gives  the  mean- 
ing "being  filled  day  by  day";5    this  has  in  its  favor  the  fact 

1  Harris,  Wisdom  of  Christ,  HDG  II.  830.    Others  make  similar  statements. 

2  TTPebfiOTt  is  added  by  Codex  Alexandrinus  and  Codex  Purpureus,  but  crept  in 
probably  on  account  of  the  resemblance  of  our  verse  with  I.  80. 

3  Weymouth  and  Teschendorf  have  the  genitive. 

4  Between  his  Gospel  and  his  Acts,  Luke  used  the  word  in  all  ten  times.  It  is 
personified  in  Lk.  vii.  35,  and  it  seems  it  is  used  in  the  same  manner  in  xi.  49.  In 
a  restricted  sense  it  is  used  in  Ac.  vii.  10,  "wisdom  in  the  eyes  of  Pharao,"  in  Ac. 
vii.  22,  "wisdom  of  the  Egyptians,"  and  in  Lk.  xi.  31,  "wisdom  of  Solomon"; 
while  in  Ac.  vi.  3,  10,  it  is  used  in  a  general  but  good  or  spiritual  sense;  and  in 
a  like  sense  in  Lk.  ii.  40,  52. 

6  Comment,  ad  loc,  p.  74;  Farmer  also  says  the  words  "imply  a  gradual  pro- 
gressive filling"  (HDG  I.  225). 

151 


152     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

that  the  present  participle  is  used  and  is  closely  connected  with 
two  imperfects.  On  the  other  hand  the  Vulgate  has  the  rendering 
"plenus,"  followed  by  the  Douay  "full  of";  and  the  revised  has 
much  the  same  meaning,  "filled  with." 

There  are  instances  where  this  same  present  participle  is  used 
in  a  completed  sense,  that  is  with  the  meaning  "filled"  or  "kept 
full"  and  not  "being  filled."  In  Ephes.  i.  23  — the  only  other 
New  Testament  passage  which  has  this  present  participle,  we 
read:  t&  xXiqpw^a  tou  xavxa  £y  xaatv  xXiQpou^svou,  "the  fullness 
of  Him  who  is  filled  all  in  all,"  the  literal  translation  (as  Douay), 
or  according  to  meaning  (as  Rev.)  "the  fullness  of  Him  that  fill- 
eth  all  in  all."  Here  on  account  of  the  word  "fullness"  the  parti- 
ciple must  have  a  completed  sense.  A  completed  sense  is  also 
found  in  Dan.  viii.  23,  xXtqpou^Ivwv  tg>v  a^ocpTwv  auTwv,  "after 
their  iniquities  are  completed"  or  "are  come  to  the  full,"  and  in 
Martyr.  S.  Polycarpi  15,  2:  "Like  a  sail  of  a  ship  filled  by  the 
wind  0x6  xv£6(jLaT0<;  xXYjpoupiivif).1  In  Justin's  Dialogue  87,  2 
xX-qpouTtxt2  is  to  be  rendered  "is  filled,"  not  "is  being  filled,"  and 
in  93.2  xXY]poG<r0ai3  "to  sum  up,"  "to  fulfil." 

From  these  examples,  it  is  clear  that  there  is  a  foundation  for 
the  rendering  of  the  present  participle  xXtqpoujjlsvov  in  Luke  ii. 
40,  by  "filled."  In  its  favor,  too,  is  the  fact  that  the  word  is 
placed  in  opposition,  and  also  the  fact  that  it  is  connected  with 
the  following  statement,  "and  the  Grace  of  God  was  in  Him," 
expressive  of  state.  But  apart  from  the  tense  used,  this  word 
xXiQpouv  of  itself  has  a  completed  sense;  to  quote  Farmer,  it 
means  "to  fill  a  thing  full,  so  that  it  lacks  nothing."  4  And  even 
if  the  translation  here  be  "being  filled  with  wisdom,"  the  mean- 
ing of  the  text  is  that  the  Child  Jesus  did  become  full  of  wisdom, 
—  that  is  according  to  the  strict  letter  of  the  text. 

In  the  concluding  phrase  of  this  verse  40,  x<xpc<;  has  the  signi- 
fication, good- will,  favor,  grace,  and  £%'  <zut6,  "in  Him."  It  is 
not  said  that  the  Child  found  favor  in  the  eyes  of  God,  as  is  said 

1  M.PG  IV.  1040.  The  pres.  part.  ir\r\povixkvrjv  is  also  found  in  Athenagoras' 
Legatio  pro  Christianis  5,  2,  M.PG  VI.  900,  but  here  the  meaning  of  the  passage  is 
disputed. 

2  M.PG  VI.  684. 

3  M.PG  VI.  697.  The  use  here  is  analogous  to  Gal.  v.  14,  where  D  E  ms.  have 
the  present  tense. 

<HDG  1.226. 


CHRIST  CHILD'S  "WISDOM"  AND  "GRACE"     153 

of  Mary  (Luke  i.  30),  and  of  David  (Acts  vii.  46),  nor  that  the 
Child  was  full  of  grace,  but  absolutely  and  with  a  note  of  finality 
"the  Grace  of  God  was  in  Him." 

The  meaning,  then,  of  verse  40  is:  The  Child  (referring  to 
Jesus  who  was  previously  mentioned  as  forty  days  old)  grew 
and  got  strong,  filled  with  wisdom  (or  being  filled  with  wisdom) 
and  the  grace  of  God  was  in  Him.  It  is  ordinary  to  say  of  a 
child  that  he  grew  and  got  strong;  but  is  it  ordinary  to  say  of  a 
child  that  he  was  filled  with  wisdom  (or  became  filled  with  wis- 
dom) and  the  grace  of  God  was  in  him?  Was  this  said  of  any 
other  child?  Compare  verse  40  with  a  somewhat  similar  state- 
ment made  by  the  same  writer  concerning  the  growth  of  the 
Baptist,  Luke  i.  66,  80.  It  is  said  of  both  John  and  Jesus  that 
they  grew.  It  is  stated  that  John  got  strong  in  spirit,  while  Jesus 
got  strong,  filled  with  wisdom  or  being  filled  with  wisdom.  That 
the  hand  of  God  was  with  him  is  asserted  of  John,  while  of  Jesus, 
that  the  Grace  of  God  was  in  Him.  Strong  in  spiritual  zeal,  — 
this  characterizes  the  early  years  of  John's  life  as  well  as  the 
later;  as  a  Child,  Jesus  is  filled  with  wisdom  and  has  in  Him  the 
Grace  of  God.  Luke  brings  out  a  marked  contrast  between  the 
two,  indicating  the  superiority  of  Christ. 

St.  Paul  states  that  in  Christ  are  "all  the  treasures  of  wis- 
dom and  knowledge,"  Col.  ii.  3,  and  (Col.  ii.  9)  in  Him  "dwelleth 
all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  corporally."  And  St.  John  de- 
clares the  word  made  Flesh  to  be  "full  of  grace  and  truth"  (i.  14). 
Closely  corresponding  to  these,1  is  the  statement  of  Luke  that 
Jesus  as  a  Child  was  "filled  with  wisdom  and  the  Grace  of  God 
was  in  Him."  This  is  by  no  means  an  ordinary  thing  to  say  of  a 
child.  Whether  we  read  "filled  with  wisdom"  or  "being  filled 
with  wisdom"  in  this  verse,  it  is  a  most  extraordinary  thing,  and 
cannot  be  explained  naturally,  for  men  have  to  spend  years  of 
hard  study  before  they  can  hope  to  be  filled  with  wisdom.  As 
Origen  says,  "Aliud  est  partem  habere  sapientiae  aliud  est  sa- 
pientia  esse  completum.  Non  ambigimus  ergo  divinum  aliquid 
in  carne  Jesu  apparuisse  .  .  .  *et  gratia  Dei  erat  super  eum.' 
Non  quando  venit  ad  adolescent iam,  non  quando  manifeste  doce- 
bat,  sed  cum  adhuc  esset  parvulus  habebat  gratiam  Dei;  et  quo- 
1  As  was  early  pointed  out  by  Bede,  M.PL  XCII.  247. 


154     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

modo  omnia  in  illo  mirabilia  fuerant,  ita  et  pueritia  mirabilis  fuit 
ut  Dei  sapientia  compleretur." l 

This  verse  40,  delineating  the  Christ  Child  as  very  extraordi- 
nary in  regard  to  "wisdom"  and  "grace,"  is  in  perfect  harmony 
with  the  representation  a  few  verses  further,  that  Jesus  at 
twelve  years  manifested  preternatural  knowledge  before  the  doc- 
tors (47),  and  expressed  real  Divine  Sonship  in  His  answer  to  His 
parents  (49). 

At  the  end  of  the  episode  of  the  "lost"  Boy,  after  telling  how 
He  went  down  to  Nazareth  and  was  subject  to  Mary  and  Joseph, 
Luke  adds:  Kal 'It) jo 0<;xpolx.oxT£v  ivzfi  ao^tqc  xa!  ^Xtx(<?  k<*1  x«P^t 
xapa  0ecp  xa!  iv0pwxotq.  The  Evangelist  mentions  Jesus  by  name, 
whom  he  had  called  a  Boy  ('ItqcjoGs  6  xat<;)  in  vs.  43,  a  child 
(xatB(ov)  in  vs.  40,  and  a  Babe  (Ppifoc)  in  vs.  16  of  this  same  chap- 
ter. Concerning  Jesus  at  twelve  years,  the  inspired  writer  predi- 
cates, xpolxoxTsv,  "He  advanced."  The  important  question  is, 
here,  does  this  word  necessarily  include  the  idea  of  internal  in- 
crease or  acquisition  to  the  subject? 

The  metaphor  expressed  by  this  word,  xpox6xTa>,  is  taken 
either  from  pioneers  cutting  in  front  —  felling  trees  to  enable  an 
army  to  advance,  or  from  lengthening  by  hammering  —  the  beat- 
ing out  of  metals.2  In  either  case  this  word  would  have  the  idea 
of  advancing,  going  forward,  but  in  neither,  the  idea  of  internal 
acquisition  of  the  subject. 

As  to  the  usage  of  the  word  (found  elsewhere  in  the  New 
Testament,  only  five  times  in  St.  Paul),  it  sometimes  has  the  idea 
of  real  internal  acquisition  and  it  sometimes  has  not.  It  has  the 
meaning  of  internal  increase  in  Gal.  i.  14,  where  St.  Paul  uses  it  to 
express  his  advance  in  Jewish  tradition  and  observance,  xpolxoxio 
iv  Tcp  'IuBata^tp.  It  seems  to  have  this  idea  too  in  2  Tim.  ii. 
16;  iii.  8,  where  the  apostles  use  the  verb  with  M  xXsTov,  "more," 
and  in  iii.  13,  where  he  uses  it  with  M  to  xzipov,  "worse." 

On  the  other  hand  St.  Paul  uses  xpoxoxTw  to  denote  the  night 
is  passed,  Rom.  xiii.  12,  $  vu£  xpoixo^sv,  y)  hk.  Yj^iipa  fJYYixev.  We 
find  a  similar  usage  in  Josephus'  Jewish  Wars,  IV.  iv,  6,  ty)<;  vuxt&<; 
xpoxoxTouaYJq3  (the  context  indicating  that  it  was  near  morning), 

1  Homil.  in  Loc.  ad  loc.  in  M.PG  XIII.  1849. 

2  Cf.  Liddell  and  Scott,  Greek  Lexicon;  Carr:  Gospel  accord.  Luke,  97. 

3  Edit.  Bekkero  I.-IV.,  p.  318.     In  another  place  (Vita,  2)  Josephus  uses  it 
with  the  idea  of  internal  increase. 


CHRIST  CHILD'S  "WISDOM"  AND  "GRACE"     155 

and  in  Justin's  Dialogue,  56,  16,  r)  ts  fiiiipa  xpox6iuTei.i  But 
now  the  day  or  night  does  not  really  increase  in  itself;  in  fact 
during  the  last  half  of  the  day  or  night  they  wane  away.  So  that 
from  this  use  of  xpox6xTG>  it  can  be  argued  that  this  verb  expresses 
the  advance  or  proceeding  of  something,  without  necessarily 
including  real  internal  increase  or  positive  acquisition.  The  justice 
of  this  inference  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  we  find  xpogdtvw 
used  to  express  the  same  idea;  in  the  Septuagint  we  find  in  Jud. 
xix.  11,  f)  ^)[iipa  xpoge^Tjxst  and  in  Job  ii.  9,  £p6vou  $k  xoXXou 
xpogegTjxdToq.  A  somewhat  similar  usage  is  that  of  Justin,  Dial. 
II.  5,  xpoxoxt6vtg)v  f^tv  twv  X6ft«>v,  "as  the  words  proceed  for 
us"; 2 II.  Clement  17,  3,  xpox6xT£tv  h  xat<;  IvToXalq,  "to  go  forward 
in  the  commandments";8  Symmachus, xpox6xTS  (where  the  LXX 
has  xaTsuoSou)  to  render  rbt  "proceed  prosperously"  of  Ps. 
xliv.  (xlv.)  5.4  There  are  cases  therefore  where  xpox6xTO)  means 
simply  "to  go  forward,"  being  used  synonymously  with  xpogatvo), 
and  increase  of  the  subject  is  not  implied. 

Coming  back  to  Luke  ii.  52,  before  we  decide  what  is  the  force 
of  xpox6xT(o  here,  we  shall  have  to  consider  in  what  was  the  ad- 
vance and  what  is  required  by  the  context.  We  shall  first  take 
up  •fjXixfqc.  This  word  was  used  to  signify  both  "age"  and  "stat- 
ure," "in  classical  Greek  more  frequently  age,  in  biblical,  stat- 
ure";5 in  the  Greek  of  the  Papyri  always  age.6  It  certainly 
means  "stature"  in  Luke  xix.  3,  and  it  certainly  means  "age"  in 
John  ix.  21,  23;  Heb.  xi.  11.  Scholars  do  not  agree  as  to  which 
meaning  is  signified  in  Matthew  vi.  27,  Luke  xii.  25,  and  Ephes. 

1  M.PG  VI.  601. 

2  M.PG  VI.  500.  In  Dial.  2,  6,  Justin  also  uses  this  verb  to  describe  his  advance 
in  Platonic  philosophy,  but  he  uses  another  verb  with  it,  so  that  we  cannot  make  a 
definite  decision  as  to  his  usage. 

3Lightfoot:  Apostolic  Fathers,  51. 

4  Cf.  Field,  Origines  Hexaplorum,  II.  162  (Oxonis,  1875).  In  a  papyrus  from 
Fayum  (mentioned  by  Deissmann,  Light  from  the  Ancient  East,  transl.  by  Strachan, 
New  York,  1911,  p.  170,  note  13),  TrpoKoxf/ai  is  used  in  the  sense  "to  be  promoted." 
A  non-committal  example  of  the  first  century  B.C.  is  Syll.  325,  18  edit.  Ditten- 
berger,  vit earrjo ard  re  -tiXuclq.  vpoKbirroiv  nal  Trpoa.y6p.evos  els  rd  deoaefieiv 
(Moulton  and  Milligan,  Texical  Notes  from  the  Papyri,  Exp.  vol.  VII.,  ser.  7  (1909) 
470.  The  noun  irponoirii  is  used  a  few  times  in  Scripture.  In  Phil.  i.  12,  "further- 
ance (of  the  Gospel),"  and  in  verse  25  "furtherance  (of  faith),"  it  has  the  idea  of 
progress  without  increase;  but  in  1  Tim.  iv.  15,  the  idea  of  increase  is  included  and 
the  meaning  is  "profiting."  The  same  idea  seems  to  be  expressed  in  Sir.  Ii.  17; 
it  would  seem  to  have  the  meaning  of  success  or  goal  in  2  Mac.  viii.  8. 

6  Field:  Notes  on  Transl.  of  New  Test.,  6. 

6  Moulton  and  Milligan,  Texical  Notes  from  the  Papyri  Exp.,  vol.  VII.,  ser.  7 
(1909)  470. 


156     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

iv.  13;  neither  do  they  agree  in  regard  to  the  meaning  in  Luke 
ii.  52.  Plummer  holds  it  is  not  "age"  which  "would  be  rather 
an  empty  truism  here."  l  Yet  to  express  "advanced  in  life"  St. 
Luke  uses  the  perfect  participle  of  lupo^aivw,  "to  go  forward" 
(i.  7,  18;  ii.  36).  Indeed  we  find  xpo^acvw  used  with  rfkiy.iq.  where 
the  latter  word  certainly  has  the  meaning  of  "age,"  namely,  2 
Mac.  iv.  40,  also  vi.  18.  On  account  of  this  last  mentioned  fact, 
and  on  account  of  the  imperfect  xpolxoxTsv  signifying  continual 
advance,  I  would  take  tjXixcc?  in  Luke  ii.  52,  to  mean  "age."  An 
incident  of  Christ's  twelfth  year  had  just  been  recorded;  when 
He  is  next  mentioned  He  is  about  thirty,  in  the  meantime  He 
was  advancing  in  "age"  but  not  in  "stature."2  But  whether 
"age"  or  "stature"  be  understood,  the  Evangelist  wishes  to  ex- 
press the  idea  that  Christ  was  advancing  physically,  He  was  con- 
tinuing to  be  the  subject  of  physical  development.  St.  Luke 
does  not  use  the  word  "increase";  the  force  of  xpox6xTG)  is:  He 
continued  to  make  advance  or  headway  along  the  road  of  age  or 
stature. 

Next,  as  to  the  concluding  phrase,  %dpiq  is  used  in  the  same 
sense  as  it  was  in  vs.  40;  xapa  with  the  dative  signifies  place 
where  and  is  best  rendered  in  English  by  "with."  "He  ad- 
vanced in  grace  with  God  and  men;"  i.e.  His  good  and  beneficent 
actions  won  the  esteem  and  good  will  of  those  around  Him;  each 
good  act  also  was  meritorious  or  had  merit  with  God. 

Lastly  we  come  to  what  is  more  to  our  concern,  xpolxoxTev  Iv 
Tfj  aocpfqc.  Here  ao<pfqc  is  taken  in  the  same  sense  as  it  was  in  vs. 
40,  "wisdom."  Advance  in  wisdom  would  ordinarily  imply  the 
acquiring  of  new  wisdom.  Does  it  here?  What  is  the  force  of 
the  word  "advanced"  here? 

In  the  first  place,  as  we  have  said,  it  is  clear  that  this  verse  52 
is  intimately  connected  with  the  immediately  preceding  Temple 
episode,  which  in  its  turn  is  connected  with  verse  40.  The  im- 
perfects running  through  the  principal  verses  from  40  to  52  mark 
them  off  from  what  precedes  and  what  follows;  besides,  the  %a\ 
at  the  beginning  of  both  41  and  52  serves  as  a  connecting  link, 
so  that  this  very  difficult  verse  52  is  not  to  be  taken  out  of 


1  Comment,  ad  loc.,  79. 

2  Farmer  agrees  with  this  (HDG  I.  229). 


CHRIST  CHILD'S  "WISDOM"  AND  "GRACE"     157 

its  context  but  should  be  understood  in  the  light  of  what 
precedes. 

What  St.  Luke  has  previously  written  in  verses  40,  47  and 
49  seems  clear  enough.  He  states  that  Jesus  as  a  little  Child  was 
filled  with  wisdom,  or  was  being  filled  with  wisdom,  and  the 
grace  of  God  was  in  Him.  He  says  that  Jesus  as  a  Boy  of  twelve 
by  His  answers  and  His  understanding  exceedingly  astonished  all 
who  heard  Him  and  created  a  scene  which  struck  His  own  par- 
ents with  amazement.  He  records  the  first  words  of  Jesus,  men- 
tioning God  as  His  metaphysical  Father,  and  referring  to  His 
mission.  He  utters  a  reply  to  His  mother  which  was  of  so  far- 
reaching  a  significance  that  it  was  understood  only  in  the  light  of 
after  years.  With  this  context  we  must  understand  verse  52,  which 
literally  means :  And  Jesus  continued  to  advance  in  (or  proceed  in  or 
make  headway  in)  wisdom  and  age  and  favor  with  God  and  men. 

Now  the  Evangelist  does  not  use  the  word  to  "increase' '  or 
"  develop "  but  employs  a  word  which  means  to  advance,  to  pro- 
ceed, and  which  in  itself  does  not  imply  intrinsic  increase  to  the 
subject.  Then  it  should  be  remarked  that  he  does  not  say  "in 
His  wisdom,  in  His  age,  in  His  favor  with  God  and  men,"  but  he 
uses  these  words  generically  suiting  the  idea  expressed  by  iupox.6xTw. 
An  incident  of  Jesus'  twelfth  year  had  just  been  described  and 
St.  Luke,  wishing  to  span  eighteen  years  of  Christ's  life,  writes 
that  He  advanced  in  age.  "He  continued  along  the  road  of  age" 
is  the  concept  brought  out  by  this  verb,  "to  advance,"  and  this 
concept  of  continuing  along  is  brought  out  whether  TjXixfqt  be 
taken  for  "age"  or  "stature." 

Xapiq  is  also  used  generically,  no  possessive  pronoun  being  em- 
ployed. On  the  occasion  of  the  visit  to  the  Temple,  Jesus  had 
responded  to  the  obligation  He  felt  to  be  in  His  Father's  house 
or  about  His  Father's  business  even  to  the  sacrifice  of  His  earthly 
parents;  how  great  was  His  favor  with  God;  even  as  a  little 
Child  the  favor  or  grace  of  God  was  in  Him.  Does  "advance  in 
the  favor  of  God"  mean  that  the  amount  was  added  to  every 
day?     Evidently  not,1  nor  does  it  mean  that  as  His  age  or  stat- 

1  All  Catholic  theologians  are  agreed  that  Christ  did  not  intrinsically  increase 
in  grace,  v.  g.  Pohle-Preuss  (Christology,  237);  and  the  Fathers  and  theologians 
explain  Lk.  ii.  52,  "merely  as  an  outward  manifestation  of  sanctifying  grace." 
Christ  yet  unborn  was  "holy"  according  Lk.  i.  35. 


158     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

ure  increased,  so  His  favor  with  God  and  men  increased.  He  al- 
ready possessed  the  favor  of  God  (40) ;  the  verb  employed,  mean- 
ing simply  to  advance,  expresses  this  idea  (and  need  not  express 
any  more),  that  as  Jesus  continued  along  the  way  of  age  or  stat- 
ure, so  He  continued  along  the  way  of  favor  with  God  and  men; 
He  continued  to  perform  acts  which  won  the  approval  of  God 
and  men. 

Coming  to  "wisdom,"  we  again  remark  that  in  this  case  too, 
a  possessive  pronoun  is  not  used,  and  whether  we  read  the  article 
or  not,  a  generic  sense  is  expressed  as  in  verse  40.  It  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that  "wisdom"  is  not  synonymous  with  "knowl- 
edge" but  includes  it.  In  His  first  recorded  words  Jesus  had  ut- 
tered a  saying  which  the  parents  "did  not  understand."  He  re- 
vealed the  knowledge  of  His  Divine  Sonship  and  His  mission.  In 
the  scene  before  the  Doctors  He  displayed  most  extraordinary 
(indeed  we  were  led  to  believe  preternatural)  understanding. 
Even  as  a  little  child  Christ  was  filled  with  (or  was  being  filled 
with)  wisdom.  Does,  then,  the  expression  "advanced  in  wisdom," 
in  verse  52,  signify  that  Christ  continued  to  increase  His  amount 
of  wisdom?  Since  Jesus  already  displayed  wonderful  understand- 
ing and  knowledge,  to  hold  that  His  wisdom  increased  daily  would 
necessarily  require  one  to  hold  that  He  became  more  wonderful 
every  day  —  a  view  which  is  rejected  by  all.  St.  Luke  does  not 
write  "Jesus  increased  in  wisdom,"  but  "Jesus  proceeded  in  wis- 
dom." He  continued  along  the  road  of  wisdom,  in  other  words, 
He  continued  to  do  wise  acts. 

Very  many  writers  interpret  verse  52  to  mean  that  Christ  in- 
creased in  wisdom  and  age  pari  passu;  as  His  age  increased  so 
His  wisdom.1  These  writers  make  the  mistake  of  considering 
this  text  in  itself  apart  from  its  context;  they  should  take  up  the 
whole  text,  not  only  wisdom  and  age,  but  wisdom,  age,  and  grace 
with  God  and  men,  and  consider  it  in  the  light  of  verses  40,  47 
and  49.  From  His  twelfth  year  just  mentioned,  Christ  continued 
along  in  age,  He  continued  to  win  the  favor  of  God  (possessing 
it  as  a  little  child),  and  to  win  the  favor  of  men.    He  continued 

1  Many  conservative  writers  say  this,  and  some  even  understand  verse  52  to 
mean  that  Christ  just  had  the  wisdom  appropriate  for  His  age  at  each  step.  How 
then  explain  the  great  wisdom  of  the  Public  Life? 


CHRIST  CHILD'S  "WISDOM"  AND  "GRACE"     159 

along  in  wisdom  with  which  even  as  a  little  Child  He  was  filled 
and  of  which  He  gave  a  wonderful  example  in  His  twelfth  year. 
Briefly,  verse  52  means,  as  Christ  grew  up  He  performed  wise 
and  gracious  acts,  He  grew  up  in  wisdom  and  grace. 

Employing  the  figure  of  speech  known  as  zeugma,  St.  Luke 
could  use  a  verb  signifying  real  increase  in  age  or  stature,  yet  not 
entailing  this  in  regard  to  wisdom  and  grace.1  The  verb  that  he 
uses  means  simply  "going  forward"  and  does  not  in  itself  in- 
clude increase  to  the  subject. 

Another  point  that  is  deserving  of  consideration:  In  vs.  52, 
the  Evangelist  spans  a  number  of  years  of  Christ's  life  as  he  did 
in  vs.  40.  When  we  allow  for  his  love  of  variation  of  wording  and 
style,  it  will  be  seen  that  he  expresses  the  same  ideas  in  both 
verses:  Christ  grew  physically,  He  advanced  in  age  or  stat- 
ure; He  was  filled  with  wisdom,  He  continued  according  to  wis- 
dom; the  Grace  of  God  was  in  Him,  He  continued  to  do  gra- 
cious acts.  If  one  contends  that  a  different  condition  existing  in 
the  term  after  Christ's  twelfth  year  explains  St.  Luke's  change  of 
wording,  still  one  cannot  oppose  our  method  of  explaining  vs.  52 
in  the  light  of  vs.  40  without  accusing  St.  Luke  of  inconsistency. 
To  say  that  real  increase  in  wisdom  and  grace  is  expressed  in  vs. 
52  is  to  say  that  the  Evangelist  contradicts  what  he  had  already 
written. 

The  imperfect  of  the  verb  "to  proceed"  does  not  require  the 
meaning  that  Christ  continued  to  display  wonderful  wisdom. 
But  this  imperfect  connected  with  the  Temple  episode  might 
imply  that  He  continued  to  show  wisdom.  Doubtless  He  could 
advance  in  wisdom  without  showing  it,  but  Luke's  authority  for 
the  early  chapters,  Mary,  could  relate  only  what  she  saw  or  knew. 
He  showed  that  He  was  proceeding  in  age  and  in  favor  with  God 
and  men,  and  He  showed  that  He  was  proceeding  in  wisdom.  St. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  writes  concerning  Christ's  display  of  knowl- 
edge before  the  Doctors,  "see  how  He  advanced  in  wisdom  through 
His  becoming  known  to  many  to  be  such."  2     We  also  hear  such 

1  Luke  does  use  Zeugma  in  i.  64,  "His  mouth  and  tongue  were  opened,"  prob- 
ably because  he  was  translating  from  a  Hebrew  original.  Cf.  Torrey,  Translation 
made  from  Aramaic  Gosp.,  293. 

2  M.PG  LXXII.  508.  In  another  place  (Quod  unus  est  Christus,  760  M.PG 
LXXV.  1352)  Cyril  well  says,  "He  economically  allowed  the  measures  of  humanity 


160     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

explanations  of  vs.  52  as  that  of  Ward,  who  says  that  "advanced" 
means  "not  that  His  knowledge  intrinsically  increased,  but  that 
it  gradually  declared  itself  more  and  more  to  those  among  whom 
He  lived."  x  In  this  quotation  exception  may  be  taken  to  the 
"more  and  more,"  as  is  clear  from  what  has  been  stated  above, 
for  Christ  had  already  shown  wonderful  knowledge;  we  would 
confine  ourselves  to  the  meaning  that  His  wisdom  continued  to 
declare  itself,  or  rather,  He  continued  to  act  wisely. 

The  purpose  here  is  not  to  formulate  or  prove  any  theory  in 
regard  to  Christ's  increase  in  knowledge,  but  to  endeavor  to 
reach  the  exact  meaning  of  the  texts  with  which  we  are  con- 
cerned. Certainly  we  hold  that  Jesus'  experimental  knowledge  2 
increased  since  He  was  truly  man  and  had  human  faculties,  but 
we  wish  to  point  out  that  this  is  not  stated  in  Luke  ii.  52.  An 
account  of  any  of  Christ's  experiences  or  actions  which  repre- 
sents Him  as  using  His  mental  faculties  would  be  as  serviceable 
for  indicating  His  increase  in  experimental  knowledge,  as  this 
text  which  merely  says  that  He  proceeded  in  wisdom.3 

to  have  power  over  Himself."  Some  of  the  Fathers  (perhaps  on  account  of  the  con- 
flict with  Arianism)  explain  Lk.  ii.  52,  that  Christ  advanced  according  to  human 
nature.  Theodoret,  one  of  the  latter  explaining  Christ's  advance  in  wisdom,  uses 
Lk.  ii.  49,  as  we  have  done.    (De  Incarnatione,  M.PG  LXXIV.  73.) 

1  Saint  Luke,  36. 

2  Christ  possessed  a  threefold  knowledge:  (1)  that  derived  from  the  Beatific 
Vision  of  God,  (2)  infused  knowledge,  and  (3)  acquired  or  experimental  knowledge. 
Concerning  the  first  two  kinds  it  has  always  been  held  that  there  was  no  increase, 
concerning  the  last  theologians  have  not  been  unanimous.  St.  Thomas  at  first 
(III.  Sent.  Dist.  XIV.)  held  there  was  no  increase,  but  afterwards  he  changed  his 
mind  and  explained  the  matter  thus:  "Both  the  infused  knowledge  and  the  beatific 
knowledge  of  Christ's  soul  were  the  effect  of  an  agent  of  infinite  power  which  could 
produce  the  whole  at  once;  and  thus  in  neither  knowledge  did  Christ  advance, 
since  from  the  beginning  He  had  them  perfectly.  But  the  acquired  knowledge  of 
Christ  is  caused  by  the  active  intellect  which  does  not  produce  the  whole  at  once, 
but  successively;  and  hence  by  this  knowledge  Christ  did  not  know  everything 
from  the  beginning,  but  step  by  step  and  after  a  time,  i.e.  in  His  perfect  age:  and 
this  is  plain  from  what  the  Evangelist  says,  viz.,  that  He  increased  in  knowledge  and 
age  together"  (Sum.  III.  Q.  xii,  Art.  2  ad  1).  This  view  is  taken  by  many  present- 
day  writers:  Janssens  (Tractatus  de  Deo  Homine,  I.  473),  Hurter  (Theologiae 
dogmaticae  Compendium,  II.  461,  Maas  (Knowledge  of  J.  C.,  Cath.Enc),  Vonier 
(Personality  of  Christ,  95  ff.),  Pohle-Preuss  (Christology,  247-277),  Coughlan 
(De  Incarnatione,  146-167),  Lepicier  (De  Incarnatione  Verbi,  395-472). 

3  This  verse,  Lk.  ii.  52,  was  the  main  reason  for  the  explanation  of  Jesus'  increase 
in  human  knowledge  by  some  of  the  Fathers,  and  for  the  explanation  of  the  increase 
in  experimental  knowledge  by  later  theologians.  If  our  interpretation  of  the  pas- 
sage be  accepted,  it  would  seem  that  these  explanations  are  not  required;  especially 
no  pari  passu  explanation  is  needed. 


CHRIST  CHILD'S  "WISDOM"  AND  "GRACE"     161 

2.    A   SIGNIFICANT  SILENCE  IN   THESE   VERSES 

The  twelve  verses,  Luke  ii.  40-52,  which  we  have  examined 
were  intended  by  the  Evangelist  to  cover  thirty  years  of  Christ's 
life.  He  first  spans  nearly  twelve  years  in  one  verse  in  which  he 
refers  to  the  Child's  physical  growth,  remarking  in  opposition 
that  He  was  filled  with  wisdom  (or  being  filled  with  wisdom),  and 
that  the  Grace  of  God  was  in  Him.  Then  he  gives  an  incident  of 
the  twelfth  year,  in  which  the  Boy  gave  evidence  of  preternatural 
insight  and  consciousness  of  His  mission  and  real  Divine  Sonship. 
He  ends  the  account  of  the  episode  and  the  account  of  Jesus'  early 
years  by  the  reference  to  His  proceeding  or  advancing  in  wisdom, 
age  and  favor  with  God  and  men,  —  in  one  verse  bridging  over 
eighteen  years. 

These  twelve  verses  contain  the  only  evangelical  account  of 
nearly  thirty  years  of  the  Master's  Life.  It  must  be  said  that 
they  are  far  from  being  an  ordinary  way  of  describing  the  growth 
of  a  child  to  manhood;  there  is  not  the  slightest  attempt  to  ac- 
count for  the  Great  Person  Who,  in  so  short  a  time,  left  such  an 
impression  on  the  world;  there  is  not  even  an  attempt  to  account 
for  His  great  knowledge  and  divine  self-consciousness  either  of 
His  public  life  or  His  twelfth  year.  Whence  came  this  knowledge 
and  self -consciousness?  One  should  be  able  to  account  for  it 
if  Christ  was  merely  human.  How  is  it  that  Luke  does  not  tell 
us  that  Jesus  received  his  knowledge  under  the  guidance  of  some 
great  philosopher?  In  this  regard  Luke  is  not  silent  concerning 
other  men  about  whom  he  wrote;  for  example,  about  the  wise 
Joseph,  who  from  being  a  slave  became  the  governor  of  all  Egypt; 
"and  (God)  gave  him  favor  and  wisdom  in  the  sight  of  Pharao," 
Acts  vii.  10;  about  the  great  Lawgiver,  Moses,  "and  Moses  was 
instructed  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians"  (Acts  vii.  22); 
about  Paul  the  orator  and  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  "brought  up 
in  this  City,  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel,  taught  according  to  the  truth 
of  the  law  of  the  fathers, "  Acts  xxii.  3.  Christ  is  never  mentioned 
as  having  received  instructions  at  the  feet  of  any  Gamaliel;  it  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  Gospels  that  He  even  went  to  any  school. 

The  Synoptics  seem  to  imply  that  Christ  did  not  receive  His 
great  knowledge  in  any  school.    They  tell  us  that  the  people  of 


162     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

the  town  "where  He  was  brought  up"  could  not  account  for  His 
wisdom,  Mtt.  xiii.  54;  Mk.  vi.  2,  3;  Lk.  iv.  22;  nor  can  Lk.  iv.  16 
be  cited  as  proving  that  Jesus  had  attended  school,  for  as  Plummer 
(Comment,  ad  loc.  p.  118)  states,  "it  is  best  to  confine  xaTa  t6 
eEw0&<;  to  the  clause  in  which  it  is  imbedded  and  not  carry  it  on 
to  av£<JTT)   ivayvwvac."    In  any  case  it  only  refers  to  Christ's  custom 
on  Sabbath  days.    The  Fourth  Evangelist  makes  Christ's  hearers 
state   that   He   was   unschooled    xw<;  o5to<;    f  pdft&aca  oISsv  ^ 
^s^aOiQxwc;  (vii.  15),  and  makes  Christ  Himself  explain  in  the  fol- 
lowing verse  (16),  "My  doctrine  is  not  Mine,  but  His  that  sent 
Me";    again  viii.   28:   "as  the  Father   hath   taught    Me,  these 
things  I  speak"  (cf.  also  viii.  19,  20,  26).    This  same  Evangelist" 
who  has  it  that  Christ  was  unschooled,  mentions  His  writing  on  the 
ground,  viii.  6,  8;    and  twice   (xvi.  30;    xxi.   17)  represents  an 
apostle  as  saying  that  He  knew  all  things.     Cf.  also  Jn.  iii.  2; 
xviii.  37.    The  Messiah  was  to  know  all  things,  cf.  Jn.  iv.  25;  Is. 
Iv.  4.    In  all  tradition  there  is  not  the  slightest  implication  that 
Jesus  learned  from  any  human  being;   the  Apocryphal  Gospels 
contain  curious  stories  about  His  being  brought  to  school,  but 
they  always  make  it  clear  that  on  the  first  day  He  knew  more  than 
His  teacher.     St.  Thomas  holds  that  Christ's  human  knowledge 
came  by  discovery,  not  by  teaching,  for  he  writes,  "it  was  more 
fitting  for  Christ  to  possess  a  knowledge  acquired  by  discovery 
than  by  teaching"  (Summa,  Part  III.  Q.  ix,  Art.  4  ad  i),  and  in 
Q.  xii.  art.  3,  he  shows  that  Christ  did  not  learn  anything  from 
men.    An  objection  may  be  brought  from  Heb.  ii.  17,  "it  behooved 
Him  in  all  things  (wzb  xtzvTa)  to  be  made  like  unto  His  breth- 
ren ..."    We  know  from  St.  Paul  himself  that  sin  is  excepted 
(v.g.  Heb.  iv.  15) ;  from  the  Gospel  narrative,  we  know  that  miracu- 
lous power  is  excepted,  and  we  know  too  that  there  is  excepted  a 
miraculous  knowledge  and  a  peculiar  self -consciousness;  could  not 
the  manner  of  receiving  His  knowledge  be  excepted  also?    It  is  not 
required  by  the  context  of  the  passage  of  Hebrews;    it  would 
suffice  that  Christ  merely  take  our  flesh  "that  He  might  become  a 
merciful  and  faithful  high  priest  before  God,  that  He  might  be  a 
propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  people."    In  this  same  epistle,  v.  8, 
"He  learned  obedience  by  the  things  which  He  suffered"  is  not  a 
serious  objection;  it  signifies  He  practiced  obedience,  and  is  much 
similar  to  the  thought,  "He  was  obedient  unto  death  even  unto 
the  death  of  the  cross"  (Philipp.  ii.  8).    Most  Protestant  theolo- 
gians in  explaining  the  Kenosis  think  it  necessary  to  admit  Christ's 
ignorance  and  His  need  of  learning  like  an  ordinary  child,  but  as 


CHRIST  CHILD'S  "WISDOM"  AND  "GRACE"    163 

Vonier  says,  "it  is  a  very  strange  phase  of  thought  in  our  own  days 
to  look  for  moral  progress  to  ignorance  instead  of  to  knowledge, 
as  does  the  older  theology"  (Personality  of  Christ,  105). 

As  has  previously  been  stated,  there  probably  existed  at  the 
time  of  Our  Lord,  a  primary  school  at  Nazareth;  Edersheim  * 
and  others  say  that  Jesus  probably  attended  it.  There  is  not  the 
slightest  reference  to  this  in  historical  documents,  which  rather 
create  a  presumption  against  this  view.  But  whatever  view  one 
may  take  of  this  matter,  it  is  certain  that  Jesus  did  not  attend 
any  higher  school.  All  evidence  shows  that  He  "never  studied 
at  any  of  the  scribal  colleges."  2  It  is  important  to  note  that 
Christ,  who  afterwards  (v.g.  Matthew  xix.  1-12;  Luke  xx.  20-47) 
showed  His  superiority  over  those  trained  in  rabbinical  discus- 
sion, who  as  a  Boy  of  twelve  in  the  midst  of  the  Doctors  as- 
tounded all  byrHis  understanding  and  His  answers,  did  not  re- 
ceive any  rabbinical  education;  He  did  not  live  in  a  theological 
atmosphere;  He  was  not  an  inhabitant  of  the  land  famed  for  its 
Rabbis,  Judea,  nor  of  Jerusalem,  the  City  of  the  Chief  Priests 
and  Doctors.  He  belonged  to  Galilee,  a  by- word  among  the 
Southerners  for  ignorance  and  uncouthness  (cf.  John  vii.  52),  and 
was  a  citizen  of  the  town  of  Nazareth,  from  which  nothing  good 
was  expected  (John  i.  46).  St.  Luke  explicitly  stated  He  was 
brought  up  there  (^v  Te0payipi£vo<;,  iv.  16),  and  all  historical  evi- 
dence bears  this  out.3 

How  then  shall  we  account  for  Christ's  great  knowledge  and 
self -consciousness?  Since  no  teacher  is  responsible,  the  only 
other  natural  explanation  that  could  be  offered  is  Jesus'  surround- 
ings, His  own  meditations  on  nature  and  Sacred  Scripture,  and 
this  is  the  explanation  which  is  offered  by  many  modern  writers. 
Stapfer4  and  others  go  through  several  pages  describing  the 
natural  beauties  of  Nazareth,  the  historical  surroundings,  the  im- 

1  Life  and  Times  of  J.,  I.  233. 

2  Smith,  Education,  HDG  I.  508.  Even  Harnack  says,  "It  is  improbable  that 
He  went  through  any  rabbinical  school"  (What  is  Christianity,  31). 

3Lk.  ii.  39,  51;  Mtt.  ii.  23;  iv.  13;  Mk.  i.  9;  vi.  1;  Jn.  i.  45,  46;  Ac.  x. 
38.  As  to  His  profession  Christ  was  a  carpenter,  Mk.  vi.  3;  Justin  (Dialogue,  88), 
and  "Gospel  of  Thomas"  (1st  Gr.  Form,  XIII.)  add  "making  ploughs  and  yokes" 
—  but  these  were  then  made  of  wood. 

4  J.  C.  before  His  Ministry,  see  especially  35-7.  Mere  possible  influences 
occupy  Farquhar,  The  Schools  and  Schoolmasters  of  Christ,  London,  1901. 


164     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

pressive  Jewish  ceremonial,  the  inspirations  likely  to  be  awakened 
from  familiarity  with  the  Old  Testament  writings,  contending 
that  these  externals  gave  birth  to  and  developed  in  Christ  His 
peculiar  self -consciousness.  But  represent  these  as  one  will,  were 
they  not  at  the  disposal  of  every  Israelite?  And  how  answer  the 
pointed  question:  Why  did  a  cause  so  common  and  so  general 
produce  in  Christ  and  in  Him  alone  a  result  altogether  excep- 
tional and  special?  If  the  causes  were  sufficient  to  produce  such 
knowledge  and  self-consciousness  in  Jesus,  why  did  they  not  pro- 
duce the  like  in  other  children  of  Israel?  Why  was  Christ  an  ex- 
ception to  His  contemporaries  and  the  companions  of  His  youth? 
These  questions  come  to  one's  mind  and  require  to  be  answered 
by  those  who  put  forward  Christ's  historical  surroundings  and 
His  Jewish  bringing  up  as  an  explanation  of  His  great  knowledge 
and  self -consciousness.  Besides,  the  explanations  brought  for- 
ward are  devoid  of  historical  foundation,  they  are  even  excluded 
by  historical  evidence.  St.  Luke  preserves  a  strange  and  signifi- 
cant silence,  recording  only  the  facts;  but  these  facts  exclude  any 
natural  explanation,  for  the  Evangelist  represents  Christ  as  hav- 
ing exceptional  knowledge  and  self-consciousness,  not  only  in  His 
thirtieth  year,  but  also  in  His  twelfth,  and  records  that  as  a  Child 
He  was  filled  with  (or  kept  full  or  being  filled  with)  wisdom,  and 
that  the  grace  of  God  was  in  Him.  There  was  no  time  or  room 
for  natural  causes  to  produce  naturally  an  effect  in  Him.  St. 
Luke  gives  no  explanation;  he  does  not  state  any  cause  for  or 
record  any  origin  of  Christ's  knowledge  and  self-consciousness. 
The  argument  of  silence  is  of  value  here,  the  silence  is  highly  sig- 
nificant; it  implies  that  the  origin  of  Christ's  knowledge  and  self- 
consciousness  is  to  be  sought  in  Christ's  own  origin  and  nature, 
which  had  previously  been  described  by  the  Evangelist. 

From  the  above  considerations  we  can  easily  see  that  scholars 
who  wish  to  follow  the  Gospel  records  can  find  no  natural  ex- 
planation for  Christ's  knowledge  and  self-consciousness.  Even 
Wendt  in  his  explanation  has  to  postulate  "a  miraculous  Divine 
endowment."  1  After  describing  the  training  of  Jewish  boys, 
Brough  confesses  that  "the  growth,  in  such  an  atmosphere,  of  an 
individual  so  unique  is  the  work  of  something  that  is  more  than 
1  The  Teaching  of  J.,  94. 


CHRIST  CHILD'S  "WISDOM"  AND  "GRACE"     165 

human."  !  Ewald  explicitly  states  that  "Jesus  would  never  have 
become  what  He  subsequently  became  in  the  light  of  the  great 
public  history  of  His  life,  if  His  mind  had  not  from  the  first  re- 
ceived the  Divine  designation  and  power  needful  for  it,"  2  and 
he  refers  to  the  matter  as  "superhistorical,"  and  after  saying  that 
he  could  not  find  anywhere  any  signs  of  the  origin  of  Christ's  self- 
consciousness,  Dalman  rightly  argues  that  "if  Jesus  was  con- 
scious of  no  beginning  in  His  peculiar  relationship  to  God,  it 
must,  of  course,  have  had  its  genesis  with  His  birth;  and  fur- 
ther, God  must  have  so  participated  in  assigning  that  position, 
that  the  human  factors  concerned  fell  entirely  into  the  back- 
ground." 3 

The  silence  then  in  these  two  verses,  40  and  52,  which  cover 
nearly  thirty  years  of  Christ's  Life  is  fraught  with  significance 
implying  that  the  origin  and  explanation  of  the  wisdom  with 
which  Jesus  was  filled  and  in  which  He  proceeded  are  to  be  sought 
in  Christ's  own  origin  and  nature,  and  are  supernatural;  the  fact 
that  Jesus  as  a  Child  was  filled  with  wisdom  is  itself  supernatural; 
verse  52  offers  no  objection  to  the  conclusion  in  our  main  chap- 
ter, as  it  can  and  should  be  explained  in  its  context;  and  finally 
verse  40,  far  from  opposing,  rather  strongly  confirms  our  conclu- 
sion, —  the  fact  that  Jesus  as  a  Child  was  filled  with  wisdom  adds 
weight  to  the  other  arguments  for  the  full  and  real  meaning  of 
the  words  "My  Father"  on  His  lips  in  His  twelfth  year.4 

1  Early  Life  of  Our  Lord,  46. 

2  History  of  Israel,  VI.  189. 

3  Words  of  J.,  86. 

4  Condemned  propositions  ex  deer.  S.  Off.  Lamentabile,  3  Julii  1907  (Denzinger, 
Encheridion,  p.  541):  XXII.  Conciliari  nequit  sensus  natural  is  textuum  evangeli- 
corum  cum  eo  quod  nostri  theologi  docent  de  conscientia  et  scientia  infallibili  Jesu 
Christi,  XXXIII.  Criticus  nequit  asserere  Christo  scientiam  nullo  circumscriptam 
limite  nisi  facta  hypothesi,  quae  historice  haud  concipi  potest  quaeque  sensui  morali 
repugnat,  nempe  Christum  uti  hominem  habuisse  scientiam  Dei  et  nihilominus 
noluisse  notitiam  tot  rerum  communicare  cum  disciputis  ac  posteritate.  XXXV. 
Christus  non  semper  habuit  conscientiam  suae  dignitatis  messianicae. 


SECTION  VI 

JESUS'  FIRST  RECORDED  WORDS  AND  THE 
REMOTE  CONTEXT 


CHAPTER  XIV 
THE  WHOLE  LUCAN  ACCOUNT  OF  CHRIST 

1.    THE  INFANCY  SECTION 

The  Angel  of  the  Annunciation  foretells  the  great  contrast 
that  exists  between  Christ  and  John  the  Baptist.  To  Zachary  he 
says,  "Thy  wife  Elizabeth  shall  bear  thee  a  son"  (i.  13);  but  to 
Mary,  "The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee  and  the  power  of 
the  Most  High  shall  overshadow  thee"  (i.  35).  He  prophesies 
that  John  "shall  be  great  before  the  Lord"  (i.  15),  Jesus  simply, 
"shall  be  great"  (i.  32);  John  "shall  be  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost"  (i.  15);  Jesus  is  to  be  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (i.  35) ; 
and  while  John  "shall  convert  many  of  the  children  of  Israel  to 
the  Lord  their  God,  and  he  shall  go  before  Him  in  the  spirit  and 
power  of  Elias"  (i.  16,  17),  Jesus  "shall  be  called1  the  Son  of  the 
Most  High;  and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  Him  the  throne  of 
David  His  Father;  and  He  shall  reign  in  the  house  of  Jacob  for- 
ever, and  of  His  Kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end"  (i.  32,  33). 
What  a  contrast  between  Jesus  and  John  do  these  texts  bring 
out!  Jesus  is  far  superior;  He  is  even  to  be  conceived  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  hence  the  reason  why  He  is  to  be  in  reality  "the  Son 
of  the  Most  High"  (i.  32),  "the  Son  of  God"  (i.  35)! 

Zachary  himself  said  of  his  son,  "Thou,  child,  shall  be  called 
the  prophet  of  the  highest,  for  thou  shalt  go  before  the  face  of 
the  Lord  and  prepare  His  ways"  (i.  76);  while  Mary  sang,  "From 
henceforth  all  generations  shall  call  me  blessed,  because  He  that 
is  mighty  hath  done  great  things  to  me"  (i.  48,  49)  —  appropri- 
ate words  on  the  lips  of  the  mother  of  God.  She  is  declared  to 
be  such  in  reality,  by  Elizabeth,  for  while  the  unborn  Baptist  did 
homage  to  the  unborn  Saviour  (i.  41),  she  cried  in  joy  and  amaze- 

1  "Shall  be  called"  is  equivalent  to  "is,"  cf.  Bardenhewer,  Maria  VerkUndigung, 
113, 151. 


170     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

ment,  "Whence  is  this  to  me  that  the  mother  of  my  Lord, 
(tj  ^iy)ty]ptou  xuptou  jjlou)  should  come  to  me?  "  (i.  43).  Christ  is  again 
called  "Lord"  by  an  "angel  of  the  Lord"  (ayyeXo*;  xupfou,  ii.  9), 
proclaiming  to  the  shepherds  that  there  was  born  to  them  a 
Saviour  who  is  Christ  the  Lord  (Xgiwbq  Kupioq,  ii.  11).  It  is  to 
be  noticed  that  the  same  word,  x6pco<;,  which  is  applied  to  Al- 
mighty God  in  ii.  9,  is  applied  by  the  angel  to  the  new-born  Babe 
(ii.  11),  and  was  applied  by  Elizabeth  to  the  unborn  Babe  (i.  43). 
His  birth,  too,  was  signaled  by  a  multitude  of  the  heavenly  army 
filling  the  air  with  their  song,  "Glory  to  God  in  the  highest;  and 
on  earth  peace  to  men  of  good  will"  (ii.  14).  The  Child  was  not 
many  weeks  old,  when  holy  Simeon  who  had  been  informed  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  that  he  would  not  die  till  he  should  see  the  Christ 
of  the  Lord  (Xpicrr&v  Kuptou,  ii.  26),  blessing  God  for  the  fulfill- 
ment of  the  promise,  said,  "My  eyes  have  seen  Thy  salvation 
...  a  light  to  the  revelation  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  glory  of 
thy  people,  Israel"  (ii.  30,  31).  Also  the  prophetess  Anna  ac- 
knowledged God1  and  "spoke  of  Him  to  all  who  looked  for  the 
redemption  of  Israel"  (ii.  38). 

In  harmony  with  all  this,  and  crowning  it  all,  comes  the  next 
episode  described  by  the  Evangelist  in  which  Christ  as  a  Boy  of 
twelve  displayed  supernatural  understanding  and  referred  to  God 
as  His  true  Father  about  whose  concerns  He  must  be  (or  in  whose 
house  He  must  be).  Must  not  Jesus'  words  be  interpreted  in  the 
light  of  the  Virgin  Birth  previously  described,  of  which  it  is  a 
confirmation?  The  angel  had  foretold  that  Christ  would  be  the 
Son  of  God  because  of  His  supernatural  conception  through  the 
Holy  Ghost  (i.  32,  35),  and  as  Dalman  points  out  "the  words  of 
the  angel,  i.  35,  explain  for  the  readers  the  meaning  of  6  ulbq  to  0  0so  u 
by  expressed  reference  to  the  unique  nature  of  the  birth  of 
Jesus."  2  The  words  "My  Father"  on  the  lips  of  the  Boy  Jesus 
are  co-relative  to  the  angel's  words  "the  Son  of  God"  and  are  to 
be  understood  in  accordance  with  the  supernatural  conception  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  namely  real  Divine  Sonship.  Since  the  Evangel- 
ist had  described  this  divine  origin  of  Jesus,  he  felt  no  need  of  de- 

1  Some  MSS.  have  xvpios  here.    Here  as  in  ii.  50,  is  an  example  of  St.  Luke's  use 
of  a  pronoun  whose  reference  is  ambiguous. 

2  Words  of  J.,  288,  cf.  Sweet.    The  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus  Christ,  258-9, 
Felder,  Jesus  Christus,  I.  286  ff.  Box,  Virgin  Birth,  107. 


THE  WHOLE  LUCAN  ACCOUNT  OF  CHRIST    171 

fining  the  meaning  of  the  words  "My  Father"  in  ii.  49  and  he 
felt  no  need  of  giving  explanations  of  Christ's  extraordinary  wis- 
dom and  grace  in  ii.  40  and  52. 

2.    THE    BEGINNING    OF   THE    MINISTRY 

The  scene  opens  with  John  the  Baptist,  who  prepares  the  way, 
"preaching  the  baptism  of  penance  for  the  remission  of  sins" 
(iii.  3).  He  made  such  an  impression  on  the  people  that  they 
thought  in  their  hearts  "that  perhaps  he  might  be  the  Christ" 
(3.15).  The  great  Forerunner,  the  greatest  among  those  born  of 
woman  (vii.  28),  who,  with  his  thundering  denunciations  was 
making  Israel  tremble,  unhesitatingly  answered  in  the  negative 
and  generously  pointed  to  another,  to  one  far  superior  to  him- 
self, "There  shall  come  one  mightier  than  I,  the  latchet  of  whose 
shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  loose;  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire"  (iii.  16).  This  other  was  to  be  so 
closely  connected  with  God  that  He  was  to  baptize  with  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

One  day,  among  the  crowds  who  flocked  to  the  banks  of  the 
Jordan,  Jesus  Himself  appeared  and  was  baptized.  This  is  how 
St.  Luke  describes  the  event  (iii.  21,  22):  "Jesus  also  being  bap- 
tized and  praying,  heaven  was  opened;  and  the  Holy  Spirit  de- 
scended in  a  bodily  shape,  as  a  dove  upon  Him;  and  a  voice 
came  from  Heaven:  "Thou  art  My  beloved  Son;  in  Thee  I  am 
well  pleased"  (au  el  6  ui&q  ^ou  6  dya%r\':6q,  iv  aol  euS6xT)cra).1    This 

1  D  a  b  c  ff2 1  r  Justin  (Dial,  88,  M.PG  VI.  688),  Clement  of  Alex.  (Paed.  I.  6, 
M.PG  VIII.  279),  and  the  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites  (cf.  Epiphanius  Adv.  Haer.  Lib. 
I.  5,  ii.  30,  n.  13,  M.PG  XLI.  429;  three  voices  from  heaven  are  here  given:  Thou 
art  My  beloved  Son,  etc.  This  is  My  beloved  Son,  etc.,  and  I  have  this  day  begotten 
Thee)  and  others  (cf.  Sanday  H  D  B  IV.  572),  in  giving  these  words  have  a  reflec- 
tion of  Ps.  ii.  7,  namely,  uios  fiov  el  av,  iyu)  arnxepov  yeyepvrjxti.  <re.  This  is  claimed 
to  be  the  primitive  reading  by  those  who  contend  that  Christ  only  became  con- 
scious of  His  Divine  Sonship  at  His  baptism.  But  as  Dalman  remarks,  "This 
reading  may  equally  well  have  arisen  as  an  after-thought,  because,  apart  from  the 
doctrinal  preconception,  it  was  only  too  probable  that  the  Divine  words  which  re- 
called Ps.  ii.  7,  should  be  made  to  agree  to  the  terms  of  the  psalm"  (Words  of  J., 
277) .  Sanday  (op.  cit.)  with  other  arguments  points  out  the  presumption  against 
the  originality  of  this  reading.  Justin,  who  uses  this  reading,  explains  it:  Not  that 
Christ  became  the  Son  of  God  then,  but  that  "His  generation  would  take  place  for 
men,  at  the  time  when  they  would  become  acquainted  with  Him"  (Dial.  88  PG  VI. 
688).  The  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  has  it,  "That  the  Holy  Ghost  resting  upon 
Christ  said  to  Him:  Fili  mi,  in  omnibus  prophetis  expectabam  te,  ut  venires,  et 
requiescerem  in  te.    Tu  es  enim  requiea  mea,  tu  es  Fihus  meus  primogenitus,  qui 


172  £  THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

baptism  account  deserves  our  close  attention  on  account  of  views 
and  inferences,  opposed  to  our  conclusion  from  the  study  of  Luke 
ii.  49,  views  held  by  certain  early  heretics  who  attached  Christo- 
logical  importance  to  Christ's  baptism,  inferences  drawn  by  nearly 
all  modern  non-conservative  scholars,  when  they  contend  that  the 
baptism  marks  the  awakening  of  Christ's  Messianic  conscious- 
ness; that  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  Jesus  first  got  the  idea  of 
His  being  the  Son  of  God,  —  the  heavenly  voice  being  only  the 
internal  voice  of  His  consciousness  assuring  Him  of  the  fact.1 
Concerning  the  views  of  the  early  heretics,  we  need  only  to  quote 
Irenaeus:  "It  certainly  was  in  the  power  of  the  Apostles  to  de- 
clare that  Christ  descended  upon  Jesus,  or  that  the  so-called  Su- 
perior Saviour  (came  down)  upon  the  dispensational  one,  or  He 
who  is  from  the  invisible  places  upon  him  from  the  Demiurge; 
but  they  neither  knew  nor  said  anything  of  the  kind,  for,  had 
they  known  it,  they  would  have  also  certainly  stated  it.  But 
what  really  was  the  case,  that  did  they  record  (namely)  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  as  a  dove  descended  upon  Him."  2 

Now  as  to  the  modern  theories:  In  the  first  place,  may  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  heavenly  voice  be  considered 
an  internal  experience?  This  is  directly  opposed  to  the  represen- 
tation of  St.  Luke,  who  explicitly  states  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
came  in  bodily  shape  (awyiaTixq)  elBst)  as  a  dove  (iii.  22).  And 
St.  Luke's  account  is  confirmed  by  the  Fourth  Gospel,  according 
to  which  John  says,  "I  saw  the  Spirit  as  a  dove  from  heaven  and 
He  remained  upon  Him"  (i.  32).    It  is  true  that  neither  Matthew 

regnas  in  sempiternam  (Jerome  in  Isa.  xi.  4;  in  his  Comment.  Lib.  IV.  c.  XI.,  M.PL 
XXIV.  D.  145).  This  implies  the  contrary  to  the  modern  view.  In  the  other  quota- 
tion of  this  Gospel  preserved  by  Jerome  (Adv.  Pelag.  III.  2,  M.PL  XXIII.  570-571), 
when  in  answer  to  His  parents,  who  asked  Him  to  go  up  and  be  baptized  by  John, 
Jesus  replied:  "When  have  I  sinned  that  I  should  go  up  and  be  baptized  by  Him, 
except  perchance,  this  very  thing  which  I  have  said  is  ignorance?"  "Ignorantia" 
does  not  refer  to  self-consciousness.  Augustine  (Harmony  of  the  Gospels  II.  14, 
N.P-NF  (1st  ser.)  VI.  120)  refers  to  the  fact  that  some  codices  of  St.  Luke  have  the 
reading: "  This  day  have  I  begotten  Thee,"  and  he  explains  the  matter  on  the  ground 
that  there  was  more  than  one  voice  from  heaven.  We  may  add  that  St.  Paul 
applies  Ps.  ii.  7  to  the  Resurrection  of  Christ,  Ac.  xiii.  33;  Heb.  i.  5;  v.  5. 

1  The  modern  view  concerning  the  origin  of  Christ's  self-consciousness  at  the 
baptism  is  not  found  among  the  views  of  the  early  heretics.  The  early  views  were 
all  objective,  with  no  reference  to  Christ's  self-consciousness  as  such.  Besides, 
unlike  the  modern  view,  they  were  not  based  on  the  heavenly  voice,  "This  is  My 
beloved  Son." 

*  Adv.  Haer.  III.  17, 1.  A-NF  I.  444. 


THE  WHOLE  LUCAN  ACCOUNT  OF  CHRIST      173 

(iii.  16)  nor  Mark  (i.  10)  refer  to  the  bodily  form  of  the  dove, 
but  they  both  say  that  the  Holy  Ghost  came  "as  a  dove";  and 
while  stating  that  Jesus  saw  the  dove,  they  do  not  affirm  that 
He  alone  saw  it.  As  to  the  heavenly  voice,  if  as  radical  scholars 
contend  it  is  the  all-important  part  of  the  account,  symbolizing 
Jesus'  consciousness  arriving  at  assuredness,  how  is  it  that  John 
does  not  give  this  at  all?  All  the  three  Synoptics  have  "a  voice 
from  the  heavens"  (Luke  writing  "heaven"),  implying  that  it 
was  external;  none  of  them  mentions  the  fact  that  Christ  heard 
it;  indeed,  Matthew  intimates  that  it  was  intended  for  the  by- 
standers, for  he  gives  the  words  thus,  "This  is  (not,  'Thou  art') 
My  Beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased"  (iii.  17).  In  the 
Fourth  Gospel  the  Baptist  states  that  the  descending  of  the  dove 
was  a  sign  for  him  (i.  33,  34),  "He  who  sent  me  to  baptize  with 
water  said  to  me:  He  upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  de- 
scending .  .  .  and  I  saw,  etc."  From  all  these  indications  it  is 
clear  that  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  heavenly  voice 
were  external.  To  explain  them  by  an  internal  experience  is  to 
argue  subjectively  and  to  disregard  the  text.1 

We  go  on  to  the  further  question:  Did  the  baptism  mark  a 
crisis  in  Christ's  conscious  life?  Did  it  mark  the  awakening  of 
His  Divine  self -consciousness,  or  its  arrival  at  assuredness?  Those 
who  hold  the  affirmative  point  to  the  heavenly  voice,  "Thou  art 
My  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased"  —  the  voice  of  His 
consciousness,  they  claim,  telling  Him  He  is  God's  Son.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Gospel  narrative,  as  we  have  shown,  the  heavenly  voice 
as  well  as  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  form  of  a  dove, 
must  be  understood  as  external  manifestations.  More  than  this, 
in  none  of  the  inspired  accounts,  is  there  a  single  reference  to 
Christ's  self-consciousness,  much  less  a  statement  of  any  crisis  or 
development.  St.  Matthew  even  implies  that  before  the  baptism 
Jesus  was  conscious  of  His  dignity,  for  according  to  this  Evangel- 
ist, to  John  who  expostulated,  "I  have  a  need  to  be  baptized  by 
Thee,  and  comest  Thou  to  me"  (iii.  14),  the  Saviour  acknowl- 
edging the  truth  of  John's  remark  replied:     "Suffer  it  now,  for 

1  Cf.  Irenaeus  (Adv.  Haer.  III.  9,  3,  A-NF  I.  423);  Origen  (Adv.  Celsus,  I.  xli  ff. 
A-NF  IV.  413  ff.),  St.  Thomas  (Summa  Theol.  III.,  Q.  XXIX.  8),  Bomemann 
(Die  Taufe  Christi),  Lepin  (Christ  and  the  Gospel,  251),  Felder  (Jesus  Christus,  I. 
262,  275). 


174     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  justice"  (iii.  15). »  Finally,  if  the 
heavenly  voice  "Thou  art  My  Beloved  Son,  in  Thee  I  am  well 
pleased"  is  only  an  indication  of  Christ's  arrival  at  full  self -con- 
sciousness, how  is  it  that  we  again  hear  this  voice  uttering  the 
same  words  on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration  (Matthew  xvii.  5; 
Mark  ix.  6;  Luke  ix.  9,  35;  cf.  2  Peter  i.  17)?  In  the  theory  of 
non-conservative  writers,  this  cannot  be  explained.  And  this 
theory  has  not  only  to  explain  the  voice,  but  also  the  coming  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  which  could  have  no  in- 
ternal signification  for  Jesus,  who  is  described  as  born  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  records  of  both  Matthew  and  Luke.  We  may  add 
that  if  for  the  Evangelists,  the  baptism  witnessed  Christ's  awak- 
ening to  self -consciousness,  it  is  hard  to  explain  how  so  impor- 
tant an  event  is  not  plainly  described  by  them,  how  they  do  not 
refer  to  it,  how  they  create  the  very  opposite  impression.2 

Judging  from  the  sacred  narratives  the  incidents  at  the  bap- 
tism were  external,  they  marked  no  change  in  Christ's  idea  of  His 
Messiahship  and  Divine  Sonship,  rather  they  were  a  confirmation 
of  these  intended  not  for  Jesus  Himself  but  for  John  and  the  by- 
standers, as  is  made  clear  in  the  accounts  of  Matthew  ("This  is," 
iii.  17),  Luke  ("In  bodily  shape"  iii.  22),  and  John  ("I  saw  and 
gave  testimony"  i.  34).  As  Dalman3  rightly  concludes,  "the 
Evangelists  give  an  account  of  the  voice,  not  on  account  of  any 
importance  which  the  reception  of  such  a  divine  voice  might  pos- 
sibly have  for  Jesus,  but  in  the  sense  of  impressive  testimonies 
that  Jesus  really  was  what  His  disciples  before  the  world  pro- 

1  Cf.  D'Arcy  (HDG  I.  362).  This  is  implied  too  by  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews  .which  represents  Christ  as  saying  to  his  mother  and  his  brethren  that  He 
had  not  any  need  to  be  baptized  (Jerome  Adv.  Pel.  III.  2,  M.PL  XXIII.  570). 
An  anonymous  Tractatus  de  Rebaptismate  (XVII),  written  by  a  contemporary 
of  St.  Cyprian,  says  that  a  book  called  the  Pauli  Praedicatio  represents  Christ 
"confessing  His  own  sin  —  although  He  alone  did  not  sin  at  all  —  and  almost  com- 
pelled by  His  mother  Mary  unwillingly  to  receive  John's  baptism"  (A-NF  V.  677) . 

2  Against  the  modern  view  of  Christ's  baptism  we  have  confined  ourselves  to 
the  reasons  drawn  from  the  Gospel  account;  there  are  other  reasons,  for  instance, 
the  silence  of  St.  Paul;  as  Sanday  says,  "There  is  not  a  single  reference  in  the  whole 
of  his  writings  to  our  Lord's  baptism,  as  a  landmark  or  turning  point  in  His  career" 
(Life  of  Christ  in  Recent  Research,  133).  Besides  the  modern  views  cannot  boast 
that  they  are  according  to  the  principles  of  psychology.  Why  should  the  baptism 
have  the  effect  they  claim,  on  Jesus,  and  not  on  anybody  else?  Was  not  Christ 
just  emerging  from  private  life,  having  no  experience  as  a  teacher  or  preacher?  What 
was  the  relation  of  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  Christ's  self-consciousness? 

8  Words  of  J.,  280. 


THE  WHOLE  LUCAN  ACCOUNT  OF  CHRIST      175 

claimed  Him  to  be."  So  that  instead  of  containing  anything 
derogatory  to  the  result  in  Section  IV,  the  baptism  account 
brings  a  confirmatory  argument;  the  resting  on  Jesus  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  the  Heavenly  Father  intervening  so  far  in  Jesus'  be- 
half as  loudly  to  proclaim  Him  as  His  beloved  Son,  are  a  further 
confirmation  of  the  view  that  when  the  latter  in  His  twelfth  year 
called  God,  "My  Father,"  He  signified  metaphysical  relation. 

St.  Luke  goes  on  to  remark  that  when  Jesus  began  His  minis- 
try He  was  about  thirty  years  of  age  and  was  supposed  (w<; 
ivo^eTO,  iii-  23)  to  be  the  son  of  Joseph;  the  Evangelist  thus  in- 
dicating that  he  bears  in  mind  the  Virgin  Birth  which  he  had 
previously  described.  In  the  genealogy  which  he  subjoins  the 
disciple  of  St.  Paul  mentions  seventy-two  members,  —  the  sym- 
bol of  universality; x  and  contrary  to  the  previously  universal 
custom,  he  enumerates  the  members  backwards,  placing  Jesus  the 
Saviour  of  all  at  the  head  and  ending  with  the  climax,  tou  6sou 
(iii.  38).  This  expression,  coming  after  the  proclamation  of  the 
Heavenly  Father,  coming  after  the  episode  in  the  Temple,  after 
the  account  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  is  truly  the  keystone  proclama- 
tion of  Divine  Sonship.  It  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  what  pre- 
cedes, tracing  as  it  does  Jesus'  human  lineage  back  to  God. 

The  sacred  historian  then  resumes  the  account  of  Christ's  life 
which  he  had  brought  to  the  baptism,  and  tells  us  that  Jesus  re- 
turned from  the  Jordan  "full  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (iv.  1).  This 
same  Holy  Spirit  leads  Him  into  the  desert  where  He  was  tempted 
by  the  devil  (iv.  2,  13).  Three  temptations  are  described,2  and 
in  two  of  them  Satan  addresses  Christ  thus,  "If  Thou  art  the  Son 
of  God"  (Luke  iv.  3,  9;  cf.  Matthew  iv.  3,  6). 

In  the  first  place,  these  temptations  are  not  mere  internal  ex- 
periences. To  hold  this  one  must  entirely  disregard  the  Gospel 
narrative,  which  contains  accurate  references  to  places  —  a  real 
desert  (Luke  iv.  1;  Matthew  iv.  1;  Mark  i.  12),  a  real  mountain 
(Luke  iv.  5,  which  supposes  Matthew  iv.  8),  a  real  temple  (Luke 
iv.  9;    Matthew  iv.  5) — and  which  describes  real  actions,  e.g., 

1  Cf .  Heer,  Die  Stammbaume  Jesu,  53  ff. 

2  The  order  of  the  last  two  is  different  in  St.  Matthew  (iv.  5-10).  Although 
Luke  is  generally  more  careful  in  chronological  details,  yet  Matthew's  order  is 
preferable.  Cf.  Gigot,  Studies  in  the  Synoptics,  NYR  I  (1905)  3,  pp.  365-366;  Har- 
nack,  The  Sayings  of  J.,  43-44. 


176     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Satan  conducting  Him  (Luke  iv.  5,  9;  Matthew  iv.  5,  8),  the 
dialogue  with  the  Old  Testament  quotations  (e.g.,  Luke  iv.  4; 
Matthew  iv.  4). 

And  secondly:  Since  these  temptations  are  not  internal,  by 
no  means  do  they  signify  that  Christ  was  struggling  in  His  self- 
consciousness,  and  that  the  voice  of  the  tempter,  "If  thou  be  the 
Son  of  God"  indicated  that  He  had  not  yet  the  full  conviction  of 
His  Messiahship  and  Divine  Sonship.  The  Second  Gospel,  which 
the  negative  school  gives  the  credit  for  being  the  most  primitive, 
allows  only  one  verse  for  the  account  of  the  temptation,  omitting 
altogether  the  dialogue  with  Satan.  In  none  of  the  sacred  ac- 
counts is  there  mention  of  His  self-consciousness,  nor  are  any  of 
the  temptations  bearing  directly  on  His  nature  or  mission;  in 
fact,  His  replies  to  the  devil  show  assertiveness  and  conviction, 
—  the  contrary  of  doubt  or  hesitation.1 

The  temptation  was  a  real  occurrence,  in  which  a  personal 
tempter  appearing  in  bodily  form  made  outward  suggestions  to 
Jesus.  Placed  at  the  beginning  of  His  Public  Life  it  is  meant  to 
emphasize  the  fact  that  He  discarded  human  means  and  the 
worldly  Messiah  (along  which  lines  the  temptations  run)  and  to 
show  that  His  manner  of  life  was  deliberately  willed  by  Him. 
How  appropriate  this  self-conscious  way  of  acting  is  for  one  who 
realizes  He  is  the  Son  of  God!  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  while 
Satan  in  two  of  his  suggestions  says,  "If  Thou  art  the  Son  of 
God,"  referring  back  to  the  words  of  the  heavenly  voice  at  the 
baptism,2  Christ  does  not  answer  "No"  to  this  part  of  the 
tempter's  question.  His  mode  of  procedure  implies  that  He 
knew  He  was  the  Son  of  God. 

When  all  the  temptation  had  been  ended,  Jesus  began  His 
Public  Ministry.  He  "returned  in  the  power  of  the  spirit  into 
Galilee  and  the  fame  of  Him  went  out  through  the  whole  coun- 
try" (Luke  iv.  14).  We  see  that  immediately  on  His  first  ap- 
pearance, He  makes  a  deep  impression,  winning  widespread  fame 
and  receiving  the  applause  of  all  for  His  teaching,  as  the  next 
verse  tells  us:  "And  He  taught  in  their  Synagogues,  and  was 
magnified  by  all"  (iv.  15).    As  examples,  Luke  describes  His  first 

1  Cf .  D'Arcy,  Consciousness,  HDG  I.  362. 

2  Cf.  Dalman,  Words  of  J..  275;  Robertson:  Epochs  in  the  Life  of  J.,  20. 


THE  WHOLE  LUCAN  ACCOUNT  OF  CHRIST    177 

visit  to  Nazareth  where  He  was  brought  up  (iv.  16-30),  and  an 
early  visit  to  Capharnaum,  the  city  which  He  afterwards  so  much 
loved  (iv.  31-44).  In  the  former  place  Christ  applied  to  Himself 
a  Messianic  prophecy;  in  the  latter  place  He  spoke  "with  power" 
and  cured  diverse  diseases,  and  said  to  those  who  wanted  to  de- 
tain Him  there  "to  other  cities  also  I  must  preach  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  since  for  this  end  am  I  sent"  (Luke  iv.  43). 

The  account  of  the  opening  of  Christ's  Public  Ministry,  there- 
fore, does  not  inform  us  that,  during  it,  He  got  the  idea  either  of 
His  divine  mission  or  nature.  There  is  not  the  slightest  hint  to 
that  effect.  There  is  here  asserted  that  the  Heavenly  Father  pro- 
claimed Him  as  His  "beloved  Son,"  that  Satan  addressed  Him, 
"If  thou  art  the  Son  of  God,"  that  devils  recognized  Him  as  the 
"Son  of  God,"  and  there  is  given  no  denial  on  His  part,  nor 
is  there  given  even  an  intimation  that  He  doubted  about  His 
mission  or  nature.  On  the  contrary,  there  are  brought  out  His 
unwavering  conviction  and  His  full  realization  of  His  calling, 
during  His  first  appearance  at  Nazareth,  where  He  applied  to 
Himself  the  Messianic  prophecy  of  Isaias,  and  in  His  early  visit 
to  Capharnaum,  where  He  announced  that  He  must  preach  the 
kingdom  of  God.  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  there  is  nowhere  de- 
scribed, nor  is  there  even  any  reference  to,  any  beginning  of  His 
Divine  self-consciousness.  The  impression  directly  and  indi- 
rectly created  by  the  Gospel  record  is  that  Christ  came  to  His 
public  career  fully  self-conscious. 

3.    THE  PUBLIC  LIFE 

According  to  the  Third  Gospel,  Christ,  in  His  Public  Life, 
both  directly  and  indirectly  declared  He  was  the  real  Son  of  God. 
St.  Luke  not  only  represents  Christ  as  reading  the  very  hearts  of 
men  (e.g.,  v.  21,  22;  vii.  39,  40;  xi.  39),  as  foretelling  future 
events  (e.g.,  ix.  22,  44;  x.  14,  15;  xxi.  20-24)  and  as  performing 
many  and  great  miracles  (cf.  vi.  19);  but  he  also  represents 
Christ  as  acting  the  part  of  God,  for  he  describes  how  He  worked 
miracles  in  His  own  name  and  authority  (e.g.,  vii.  14;  viii.  24, 
54;  ix.  43),  how  He  imparted  to  His  disciples  the  power  of  work- 
ing miracles  by  His  authority  and  in  His  name  (ix.  1,  2,  6;  x.  9, 


178     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

17;  cf.  Acts  iii.  6,  16;  iv.  10,  30;  ix.  34;  xvi.  18),  and  how  He 
claimed  the  power  of  forgiving  sins  (v.  20,  24;  vii.  48;  xix.  10). 
St.  Luke  represents  Christ  as  taking  the  place  of  God,  for  he  in- 
forms us  that  He  set  Himself  up  in  the  place  of  Jahweh  as  the 
spouse  of  immortal  souls  (v.  34),  that  He  declared  that  for  His 
sake  one  must  hate  one's  relatives  and  even  one's  life  (xiv.  26), 
and  assured  His  fellowmen  that  "he  that  shall  lose  his  life  for  My 
sake,  shall  save  it"  (ix.  24). 

The  Third  Evangelist  represents  Christ  as  assuming  preroga- 
tives which  presuppose  Him  to  be  God,  for  he  depicts  Him  as 
announcing  He  is  "Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath"  (vi.  5),  as  claim- 
ing to  be  the  Great  Judge  of  all  men  at  the  last  day  (ix.  26;  xii. 
8,  9;  xxi.  27;  xxii.  69),  as  possessing  authority  to  send  the  Holy 
Ghost  (xxiv.  49;  cf.  Acts  i.  4,  8),  as  allowing  Himself  to  be 
adored  (xpocxuvifjcravTsq)  by  His  apostles  and  disciples  (xxiv.  52), 
as  rising  from  the  dead  and  manifesting  Himself  to  His  disciples 
during  a  period  of  forty  days  (xxiv.  26,  31,  34,  36  ff;  Acts  i.  3), 
and  as  ascending  into  heaven  (xxiv.  51;  Acts  i.  9). 

In  this  Gospel,  by  His  pointed  question  as  to  how  David 
should  call  His  son  Lord  (xx.  41,  44;  cf.  Matthew  xxii.  41,  46; 
Mark  xii.  35,  37)  Christ  adverts  to  the  fact  that  the  Messiah  is  in 
reality  Son  of  One  more  exalted  than  David,  that  is,  the  Son  of 
God.1  According  to  this  same  evangelical  record,  Jesus  fre- 
quently calls  God  His  Father  (ix.  26;  x.  21,  22;  xxii.  29,  42; 
xxiii.  34,  46;  xxiv.  49) ,2  thus  distinguishing  His  own  Sonship 
from  the  sonship  of  all  others  (cf.  xi.  2);  and  in  the  parable  of 
the  wicked  husbandmen  (xx.  9,  19;  cf.  Matthew  xxi.  33,  46; 
Mark  xii.  1,  12),  sharply  distinguishing  from  the  whole  series  of 
servants  the  "beloved  son"  as  the  sole  heir,  He  indirectly  says 
He  is  the  true  and  only  Son  of  God.  In  this  Gospel,  too,  we  find 
the  famous  declaration  "All  things  are  delivered  to  Me  by  My 
Father;  and  no  one  knoweth  Who  the  Son  is,  but  the  Father; 
and  Who  the  Father  is,  but  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son 

1  Cf.  Dalman,  Words  of  J.,  286. 

2  It  makes  no  difference  whether  the  Greek  has  iraryp  or  6  irarrip  "for  in  each 
case  the  word  to  be  presupposed  on  the  testimony  of  Mark  xiv.  36  (cf.  Rom.  viii. 
15;  Gal.  iv.  6)  is  &0@a  (N3N).  This  is  just  the  definite  form  and  means  strictly  the 
Father;  but  during  the  obsolescence  of  the  form  with  the  pronominal  suffix  (*3H 
still  to  be  seen  in  Dan.  v.  13)  it  became  the  regular  form  for  "my  Father."  Dalman, 
op.  cit.,  191, 192.    Cf .  Burkitt,  Evangelion  Da-Mepharresha,  p.  47. 


THE  WHOLE  LUCAN  ACCOUNT  OF  CHRIST      179 

will  reveal  Him"  (x.  22;  cf.  Matthew  xi.  27).  Here  Christ  claims 
to  be  the  only  revealer  of  the  Father  and,  besides,  explicitly 
states  that  no  one  can  know  Him  but  the  Father;  by  thus  signi- 
fying that  His  nature  is  such  that  it  can  be  known  only  by  God, 
He  unmistakably  expresses  that  His  nature  is  truly  Divine,  as 
everyone  who  accepts  this  passage  must  admit.1  Finally  accord- 
ing to  this  same  inspired  writer,  Jesus  openly  declared  both  His 
Messiahship  and  His  Divine  Sonship  on  the  very  solemn  occasions 
of  His  trial,  when,  His  very  life  being  at  stake,  He  was  ques- 
tioned by  the  official  representatives  of  Israel,  "the  ancients  of 
the  people  and  the  chief  priests  and  scribes"  (xxii.  66).  The  lat- 
ter first  asked  Him  if  He  was  the  Messiah,  "If  thou  be  the 
Christ,  tell  us."  As  in  His  answer,  "hereafter  the  Son  of  Man 
shall  be  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  the  power  of  God"  (xxii. 
69),  He  directly  associated  Himself  with  God,  they  immediately 
asked  Him  the  further  question,  "Art  thou  then  the  Son  of  God?" 
and  He  said,  "You  say  that  I  am"  (xxii.  70),  —  which  is  the  way 
of  saying:    You  speak  the  truth;  I  am  in  very  deed.2 

4.    THE   ACTS    OF    THE    APOSTLES 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  St.  Luke  continues  to  represent 
Christ  on  the  lines  found  in  the  Third  Gospel.  The  Risen  Sa- 
viour has  the  same  name  for  God  on  His  lips,  "the  Father"  (i. 
4,  7),  as  the  Boy  Jesus  had  in  the  first  recorded  words.  And 
Christ  too  is  conscious  of  His  great  dignity  and  His  great  value 
for  mankind,  for  He  declares  that  the  disciples  shall  be  witnesses 
unto  Him,  even  to  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth  (i.  8).  Begin- 
ning this  witnessing,  in  the  first  sermon  St.  Peter  mentions  Christ 
in  the  same  sentence  as  "the  Father"  and  "the  Holy  Ghost" 
(ii.  33),  and  declares  emphatically,  "Let  all  the  house  of  Israel 
know  most  certainly  that  God  hath  made  both  Lord  and  Christ, 
this  same  Jesus  whom  you  have  crucified"  (ii.  36).  On  other  oc- 
casions St.  Peter  called  Christ  "Lord  of  All"  (x.  36),  "Author  of 

1  See  the  confession  of  Harnack  (The  Sayings  of  Jesus,  302).  Some  critics  try 
to  cast  doubts  on  the  genuineness  and  integrity  of  passage;  concerning  these 
points  see  Schumacher,  Die  Selbstoffenbarung  Jesu,  33-100. 

2  Cf.  Dalman,  Words  of  J.,  314  ff.  Luke  xviii.  19  offers  no  objection;  it  can  be 
explained  that  Christ  would  not  accept  the  title  of  "good"  unless  He  were  recog- 
nized as  God. 


180     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Life"  (iii.  15),  "Judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead"  (x.  42).  His 
words  "Jesus  of  Nazareth;  how  God  anointed  Him  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  power"  (x.  38),  offer  no  serious  objection 
to  our  conclusion  in  this  study.  If  these  words  have  reference  to 
the  scene  at  Christ's  baptism  they  do  not  attach  any  Christolog- 
ical  importance  to  it,  given  as  they  are  by  the  same  historian, 
Luke,  who  represents  Christ  as  conceived  through  the  operation 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Likewise  St.  Paul's  words  at  Antioch  "... 
raising  up  Jesus,  as  in  the  second  psalm  also  is  written:  Thou 
art  My  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee"  (xiii.  33),  do  not 
offer  any  objection,  do  not  imply  that  Christ  was  not  Son  of 
God  before  His  resurrection,  which  was  a  great  approval  and 
confirmation  of  Christ's  Divinity.  According  to  this  chronicle, 
shortly  after  his  miraculous  conversion  St.  Paul  preached  that 
Christ  "is  the  Son  of  God"  (ix.  20).  Indeed  the  Christ  de- 
picted in  the  Acts  is  "the  Christ  —  Son  of  God,  intimately 
sharing  the  powers  and  privileges  of  God,  the  wholly  Divine 
Christ  of  the  Synoptics."  l 

The  whole  Lucan  account  of  Christ  confirms  the  conclusion 
from  the  study  of  the  first  recorded  words.  Christ  was  conceived 
through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  hence  He  was  in  reality 
and  truth  the  Son  of  God.  He  clearly  expresses  this  in  His  Pub- 
lic Life;  He  never  betrays  the  least  indication  that  He  had 
doubts  about  Himself  and  His  mission,  much  less  that  there  was 
a  time  when  He  was  ignorant  of  these  facts.  Reading  the  Gospel 
in  which  are  found  the  words  of  the  Boy  Jesus,  seeing  the  words 
"My  Father"  in  such  a  context,  one  is  naturally  led  to  accept 
them  in  the  light  of  the  supernatural  conception  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  the  same  sense  as  that  in  which  they  were  used  in  later 
life.  In  so  doing,  everything  in  the  whole  Lucan  account  falls 
into  place,  —  everything  harmonizes.  As  the  true  Son  of  God  it 
was  perfectly  natural  that  in  His  first  words  Jesus  should  refer  to 
His  great  relation  to  God,  calling  Him  "My  Father,"  as  He  did 
in  His  last  words  on  the  Cross,  "Father  into  Thy  hands  I  com- 
mend My  Spirit"  (Luke  xxiii.  46),  as  He  does  in  His  last  words 
before  the  Ascension,  "And  I  send  the  promise  of  My  Father 
upon  you"  (Luke  xxiv.  49;  cf.  Acts  i.  7). 

1  Lepin,  Christ  and  the  Gospel,  383. 


CHAPTER  XV 
THE  WHOLE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNT  OF  CHRIST 

St.  Luke  is  the  only  writer  of  the  New  Testament  who  re- 
cords the  episode  of  the  twelve-year-old  Christ  in  the  Temple. 
This  fact  can  be  easily  explained  for  the  reason  that  the  Gospels 
were  not  intended  to  be  complete  biographies  of  Christ,  but  sim- 
ply a  brief  account  of  the  "good  news";  they  preserve  "only  a 
few  stray  flowers  thrown  over  the  wall  of  an  ample  garden."  * 
St.  Luke  is  the  only  sacred  writer  who  professes  to  present  facts 
in  order,  and  to  make  investigations  concerning  all  things  from 
the  beginning  (Luke  i.  2,  3) ;  most  of  the  matter  preserved  in  the 
Infancy  Section  is  peculiar  to  the  Third  Evangelist  and  can  be 
attributed  to  his  special  sources. 

If  the  point  be  pressed  that  the  other  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  must  not  have  known  of  the  episode  of  Christ's  twelfth 
year,  since  if  they  had  known  His  words,  which,  we  claim,  ex- 
press real  Divine  Sonship,  they  would  surely  have  given  them  as 
too  important  to  be  omitted,  we  say  in  answer  that  since  modern 
writers  have  raised  the  problem  of  Christ's  self -consciousness  the 
first  words  are  very  important,  but  in  the  early  years  of  Chris- 
tianity this  problem  was  hardly  raised.  Jesus  had  been  put  to 
death  on  account  of  what  He  said  He  was;  His  claims  seem  to  be 
clearly  known.  The  first  preachers  of  Christianity  had  only  to 
emphasize  the  fact  that  Christ  was  "approved  of  God"  by  "mira- 
cles and  wonders  and  signs"  (Acts  ii.  22)  — the  principal  one  of 
these  being  His  fulfilling  the  Old  Testament  prophecies  and  adum- 
brations. Although  St.  Luke  alone  gives  Christ's  first  words,  the 
other  inspired  writers  do  not  exclude  the  fact  that  Christ  ex- 
pressed real  Divine  Sonship  in  His  twelfth  year;  they  are  in  har- 
mony with  our  conclusion  in  the  main  chapter  of  this  work. 

1  Stalker.  Son  of  God,  HDG  II.  656. 
181 


182     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

1.    ST.  MATTHEW 

St.  Matthew  does  not  refer  to  the  episode  of  Christ's  twelfth 
year,  yet  he  too,  like  St.  Luke,  has  an  Infancy  section.  He  be- 
gins his  Gospel  with  a  genealogy  whose  purpose  is  to  show  that 
Christ  is  the  Messiah  (i.  1-17).  He  represents  Christ  as  con- 
ceived by  the  Holy  Ghost  (i.  18,  20).  He  gives  the  angel's  an- 
nouncement that  Jesus  "shall  save  His  people  from  their  sins," 
and  that  He  shall  be  called  "Emanuel"  which  the  Evangelist 
himself  interprets  as  "God  with  us"  (i.  21,  23),  implying  that 
Jesus  is  God  Incarnate.1  He  also  narrates  other  miraculous  ap- 
paritions of  an  angel  in  the  interests  of  the  Child  (ii.  13,  19) ;  and 
he  describes  a  very  strange  and  miraculous  event,  that  wise  men 
were  miraculously  led  by  a  star  to  the  crib  of  the  Child  Jesus, 
that  they  adored  Him  (ii.  2,  11)  and  offered  Him  gold,  frankin- 
cense2 and  myrrh  (ii.  11).  This  adoration  of  the  Magi  offered  to 
Jesus  as  a  little  Babe  would  help  to  strengthen  the  conclusion 
previously  reached;  so  would  the  applying  to  Christ  in  Egypt  of 
the  words  of  Osee  xi.  1,  "out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  My  Son" 
(ii.  15);  all  the  miraculous  accounts  in  the  first  two  chapters  of 
St.  Matthew  do  likewise,  but  especially  the  account  of  Christ's 
Virgin  Birth  and  conception  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  we  said  re- 
garding this  point  in  St.  Luke,  the  supernatural  and  divine  origin 
of  Jesus  is  a  very  strong  argument  in  favor  of  the  opinion  that 
when  He  called  God  His  Father  He  meant  this  word  in  the  real 
true  sense. 

According  to  St.  Matthew,  when  Christ  came  to  St.  John  to 
be  baptized  the  latter  "stayed  Him,  saying,  "I  ought  to  be  bap- 
tized by  Thee,  and  comest  Thou  to  me?"  And  Jesus  answering 
said  to  Him:  "Suffer  it  to  be  so  now  ..."  (iii.  14,  15).  Here 
Christ's  consciousness  of  His  own  sinlessness  and  His  superiority 
is  clearly  reflected,  and  this,  it  is  to  be  noted,  is  done  prior  to  the 
baptism  scene,  prior  to  the  Public  Ministry.  St.  Matthew's  ac- 
count of  the  Public  Life  coincides  substantially  with  that  of  St. 
Luke.  He,  too,  has  the  so-called  Johannine  passage,  xi.  27,  upon 
which  so  much  emphasis  has  been  laid.  A  saying  of  Christ,  given 
by  this  Evangelist  alone,  "where  there  are  two  or  three  gathered 

1  Cf.  Box,  The  Gospel  Narrative  of  the  Nativity,  ZntW  VII  (1905)  87. 

2  The  frankincense  is  said  by  the  Fathers  to  be  offered  "because  Christ  was  God." 


THE  WHOLE  N.  T.  ACCOUNT  OF  CHRIST      183 

together  in  My  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them"  (xviii. 
20),1  is  said  to  show  the  "most  exalted  Christology"  and  to  sup- 
ply "a  well  attested  basis  for  the  doctrine  of  the  abiding  Christ 
as  given  in  John."  2  Christ  expressed  exalted  Christology,  too, 
according  to  the  closing  verses  of  the  First  Gospel  in  which  is 
given  the  command  to  baptize  "in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (xxviii.  19).  We  can  safely 
conclude,  therefore,  that  in  the  light  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel, 
there  is  implied  our  conclusion  from  Christ's  use  of  the  words 
"My  Father"  in  His  twelfth  year. 

2.     ST.  MARK 

In  St.  Mark's  Gospel  there  is  no  account  of  the  Boy  Christ, 
nor  is  there  any  Infancy  section  at  all;  yet  these  would  seem  to 
be  presupposed.  The  first  reference3  to  Christ  is  the  prophecy 
of  John  that  there  cometh  one  mightier  than  himself,  one  who 
shall  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost  (i.  7,  8).  Immediately  follows 
Christ's  baptism  which  we  have  previously  examined,  and  we  can 
sum  up  our  results  in  the  words  of  Sweet,  "the  miraculous  birth, 
and  the  story  of  the  youthful  visit  at  Jerusalem  are  necessary  to 
any  intelligible  explanation  of  the  baptism."  4 

At  Capharnaum  Jesus  teaches  "as  one  having  power"  (i.  22). 
He  shows  His  power  over  spirits  (i.  26,  34),  and  divers  diseases 
(i.  34),  and  He  said  to  His  followers,  "Let  us  go  into  the  neigh- 
boring towns  and  cities  that  I  may  preach  there  also;  for  to  this 
purpose  am  I  come"  (i.  38).  This  last  saying  corresponds  to 
Luke  iv.  43  and  at  least  suggests  Christ's  preexistence.  This 
seems  also  to  be  done  in  i.  24;  ii.  17;  ix.  36;  x.  45. 5  These  inti- 
mations that  Christ  was  aware  of  His  preexistence  would  confirm 
the  conclusion  that  He  expressed  real  Divine  Sonship  in  His 
twelfth  year,  for  would  it  not  be  natural  for  a  person  who  was  so 
extraordinary  as  to  have  preexisted  to  be  always  aware  of  this  fact? 

1  Cf.  Mtt.  xxviii.  20,  "behold  I  am  with  you  all  days,  even  to  the  consummation 
of  the  world." 

2  Stokes,   What  Jesus  Christ  Thought  of  Himself,  101. 

3  According  to  many  texts  the  Gospel  of  Mark  commences  thus:  The  beginning 
of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 

*  Birth  and  Infancy  of  J.  C,  83. 

B  These  have  parallel  passages  in  the  other  two  Synoptics. 


184     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

This  result  from  the  study  of  Christ's  first  words  would  be 
confirmed  by  St.  Mark's  account  of  the  Public  Life,  where  sub- 
stantially the  same  claims  are  made  for  Jesus1  as  those  found  in 
the  Third  Gospel.  Although  Mark  does  not  give  the  Johannine 
passage,  he  gives  a  saying  which  even  radical  scholars  declare  to 
be  certainly  authentic,  "of  that  day  or  hour  no  man  knoweth, 
neither  the  angels  in  heaven  nor  the  Son,  but  the  Father"  (xiii. 
32)  .2  If  this  saying  signifies  a  deficiency  in  Christ's  knowledge 
with  regard  to  the  last  day,  it  certainly  does  not  signify  a  defi- 
ciency or  limitation  in  His  knowledge  with  regard  to  Himself  as 
"Son"  and  God  as  "the  Father";  and  this  placing  Himself  as 
"Son"  above  the  angels  is  admitted  even  by  certain  negative 
scholars3  to  imply  metaphysical  relation  to  God.  Christ  speaks 
along  similar  lines  again  in  viii.  38,  "he  that  shall  be  ashamed  of 
Me  .  .  .  ,  the  Son  of  man  shall  be  ashamed  of  Him,  when  He 
shall  come  in  the  glory  of  His  Father  with  the  holy  angels."  But 
particularly  in  iii.  31,  35,  we  have  an  attitude  assumed  by  our 
Lord  which  is  parallel  to  the  attitude  He  took  towards  His  par- 
ents in  Luke  ii.  49.  Here  as  in  the  first  words  Jesus  emphasizes 
the  spiritual;  here  as  there,  He  states  that  it  is  God's  Will  that 
counts  for  Him,  that  it  is  God  that  determines  the  time  and 
place  of  His  work  for  mankind,  that  other  authorities  even  those 
of  flesh  and  blood  He  considers  not.4  The  same  principle  was 
stated  and  followed  in  the  Public  Life  as  well  as  in  the  twelfth 
year,  so  that  there  is  in  Mark  a  text  to  a  great  extent  parallel  to 
Luke  ii.  49,  and  there  is  an  indirect  confirmation  of  our  conclu- 
sion therefrom.5 

1  Christ  puts  Himself  in  the  place  of  God  for  the  individual  soul,  ii.  19,  20;  viii. 
35,  38;  xiii.  13;  xvi.  15,  16. 

2  Basing  their  view  on  this  text  and  Jn.  xi.  34,  the  Agnoetae  (6th-8th  century) 
put  a  limit  to  Christ's  knowledge.  Gregory  the  Great  argues  against  them,  "For 
with  what  meaning  can  one  that  confesses  that  the  very  Wisdom  of  God  was  incar- 
nate say  that  there  is  anything  that  the  Wisdom  of  God  is  ignorant  of?"  Ep.  x. 
xxix.  N.P-NF  (2d  Ser.)  XIII.  48.  See  the  answers  to  three  propositions  given  by 
the  Holy  office  June  5,  1918  (Acta  Apostolicae  Sedis,  1  Jul.  (1918)  282). 

3  Concerning  this  passage  Holtzmann  writes,  "This  is  the  single  passage  in  which 
the  Son  while  opposed  along  with  the  angels  to  the  Father,  appears  to  become  a 
metaphysical  magnitude"  (Lehrbuch  der  ntl.  Theol.  I.  268,  note  2). 

4  Cf.  Bartmann:   Christus  ein  Gegner  des  Marienkultus?  104. 

6  In  Mark  iii.  21,  it  is  said  that  Christ's  friends  wanted  to  lay  hold  on  Him  saying 
He  was  mad.  This  shows  that  they  could  not  account  for  His  miracles  and  wisdom, 
and  that  neither  His  education,  nor  meditation,  nor  the  natural  means  which  they 
know,  accounted  for  them.    Thus  it  agrees  with  Lk.  ii.  50. 


THE  WHOLE  N.  T.  ACCOUNT  OF  CHRIST      185 

3.    ST.  JOHN 

Like  St.  Mark,  the  Fourth  Gospel  has  no  Infancy  section,  but 
it  begins  with  a  profession  of  Christ's  preexistence  and  Divinity: 
"In  the  beginning  was  the  Word  and  the  Word  was  with  God, 
and  the  Word  was  God x  .  .  .  and  the  Word  was  made  flesh 
.  .  .  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father"  (i.  1,  14).  According  to 
this  Gospel  Christ  in  clear  and  explicit  terms  makes  reference  to 
the  fact  of  His  preexistence  (vi.  63;  viii.  58;  xvi.  28;  xvii.  5,  24, 
etc.),  and  in  clear  and  explicit  terms  (terms  which  were  not  mis- 
taken by  the  Jews)  He  teaches  His  Divinity  and  expresses  real 
Divine  Sonship,  —  a  fact  universally  recognized. 

But  St.  John  says  that  the  changing  of  water  into  wine  at  the 
marriage  feast  of  Cana  was  "the  beginning"  of  Jesus'  miracles 
(ii.  11).  At  first  sight  this  might  seem  to  imply  that  either  the 
scene  in  the  Temple  (Luke  ii.  41-51)  did  not  really  occur  or  that, 
if  it  did  occur,  it  was  not  outside  the  natural  order.  But  logically 
St.  John's  statement  does  riot  demand  either  of  these  conclusions. 
In  the  first  place,  this  miracle  at  Cana  is  not  the  first  miracle  de- 
scribed by  the  Fourth  Evangelist;  He  narrates  others  previously; 
for  instance,  he  previously  gives  Christ's  recognition  and  char- 
acterization of  Nathaniel,  with  Nathaniel's  confession  (i.  47,  51), 
and  the  miraculous  coming  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  form  of  a 
dove  at  the  baptism  (i.  32),  etc.  If  these  miraculous  occurrences 
are  not  excluded  by  St.  John's  statement  in  ii.  11,  surely  the  say- 
ing of  the  Boy  Christ  and  His  preternatural  display  of  knowledge 
are  not  excluded. 

Now  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  verse  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
(ii.  11),  Christ  had  told  His  mother  that  His  hour  —  the  time  of 
His  manifesting  Himself  had  not  yet  come.  He  had  probably 
intended  to  begin  His  public  manifestation  of  Himself  in  the  Tem  - 
pie  of  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of  the  Pasch  which  He  attended  a 
few  days  later  (ii.  12  ff) ; 2  but  at  the  mother's  request  He  per- 
formed the  great  miracle,  and  thereby  He  "manifested  His  glory 
and  His  disciples  believed  in  Him"  (ii.  11).  The  meaning  of  ii.  11, 
is  then,  that  it  emphasizes  the  fact  that  it  was  at  Cana  of  Galilee 

1  Here  Christ  is  called  "God"  as  in  Jn.  xx.  28;  Apoc.  xix.  10;  xxii.  9. 

2  Schaefer,  The  Mother  of  Jesus  in  S.,  241, 242.  Bartmann,  Christus  ein  Gegner 
des  Marienkultus?  73  ff. 


186     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

and  not  elsewhere  that  Jesus  began  the  public  manifestation  of 
Himself. 

This  account  of  the  miracle  at  Cana  does  not,  therefore,  ex- 
clude St.  Luke's  narrative  of  the  Boy  Christ  (as  we  have  ex- 
plained it);  rather  a  close  examination  would  suggest  that  one 
implies  the  other.  What  put  it  into  the  mother's  head  to  ask  a 
great  miracle  of  her  Son?  St.  John  Chrysostom  answers  that  it 
was  suggested  to  her  by  the  witness  of  John  the  Baptist  and  es- 
pecially "the  conception  itself  and  all  its  attending  circum- 
stances." 1  And  St.  Ambrose  rightly  says  that  Mary,  being 
astonished  at  the  miraculous  occurrence  of  Christ's  twelfth  year, 
learned  thereby  to  ask  a  favor  from  her  Son  when  He  was  grown 
up.2  Not  only  this,  but  as  previously  referred  to,  in  the  words 
in  which  Jesus  replies  to  His  mother  at  Cana,  the  same  stand  is 
taken  as  in  the  first  recorded  saying  at  twelve.  Replying  to  her 
appeal,  He  said,  "Woman  what  is  it  to  Me,  and  to  thee?  (t(  i[Lo\ 
Y.al  <jo(,  y6vat);  My  hour  is  not  yet  come"  (ii.  4).  The  expression 
"what  is  it  to  Me  and  to  thee"  signifies  that  ties  of  flesh  and 
blood  did  not  count  in  regard  to  a  public  manifestation  of  His 
power,  in  regard  to  His  Messianic  work.  For  this  reason  He 
does  not  call  her,  Mother,  but  Lady  (ytivai),  both  here  and  at 
the  foot  of  the  cross  (xix.  26). 

Immediately  after  the  narrative  of  the  feast  of  Cana,  St. 
John  gives  another  account  of  Christ  (ii.  13  ff.)  which  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  episode  of  the  twelfth  year.  The  scene  was  again 
the  Temple,  and  again  it  was  the  feast  of  the  Pasch,  the  very 
next  one  the  sacred  records  inform  us  that  Christ  attended.  He 
was  not  the  same;  He  was  now  grown  to  man's  attire  and  being 
angered  at  the  sight  of  dealers  and  money  changers  within  the 
sacred  precincts,  He  lashed  them  out  of  the  Temple,  making 
havoc  among  their  wares.  And  to  the  dove  sellers  He  said, 
"Take  these  things  hence,  and  make  not  the  house  of  My  Father 
a  house  of  traffic"  (ii.  16).  Here,  as  in  Luke  ii.  49,  Jesus  calls 
God  "My  Father."  He  calls  the  Temple  the  house  of  His 
Father;  He  may  have  done  the  same  in  the  first  recorded  words 
(Iv  to!<;).     Then  He  felt  His  relation  to  God  to  be  so  close  that 

1  In  Joann.  Horn.  XXI.  N.P-NF  (1st.  Ser.)  XIV.  74. 

2  In  Luc.  II.  Corp.  Script.  Lat.,  XXIV.  18. 


THE  WHOLE  N.  T.  ACCOUNT  OF  CHRIST      187 

He  must  remain  in  the  Temple;  now  He  feels  that  the  relation 
obliges  Him  to  incur  the  anger  and  hatred  of  these  profaners  of 
the  Temple.  He  certainly  is  about  His  Father's  business  now. 
He  was  carrying  on  the  same  policy  that  He  followed  as  a  boy; 
He  "took  up  the  thread  where  He  had  dropped  it  on  His  first 
recorded  appearance  in  the  Temple."  l 


4.    ST.  PAUL 

Although  St.  Paul's  epistles  are  only  occasional  letters  written 
for  specific  purposes,  yet  it  is  clear  that  the  Christ  that  is  referred 
to  there  is  the  Christ  of  the  Synoptics.  It  is  expressly  stated  that 
Christ  was  "made  under  the  law"  (Gal.  iv.  4),  which  is  said  to 
have  reference  to  Jesus'  circumcision,  presentation  in  the  Tem- 
ple, and  attendance  at  the  feasts,  as  St.  Luke  records  in  the  sec- 
ond chapter  of  his  Gospel.2 

St.  Paul's  Christology  would  imply  our  conclusion  from  Luke 
ii.  49.  His  most  frequent  name  for  Christ  is  "the  Son"  and 
"Lord,"  and  he  makes  mention  of  Him  as  the  only  Son  (t6v 
lauTou  ul&v)  Rom.  viii.  3,  (toO  IMou  ulou)  Rom.  viii.  32.  He  refers 
to  Him  as  "the  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all 
things  and  we  through  Him"  (1  Cor.  viii.  6);  he  calls  Him  "the 
image  of  God"  (2  Cor.  iv.  4;  Col.  i.  15);  indeed  He  seems  to 
call  Him  "God  blessed  for  ever"  (Rom.  ix.  5).3 

St.  Paul  implies  that  Christ  was  always  conscious  of  His  Di- 
vinity and  Divine  Sonship,  teaching  as  he  does  that  He  preex- 
isted. Thus  he  writes  to  Timothy  that  "Christ  Jesus  came  into 
the  world  to  save  sinners"  (1  Tim.  i.  15),  and  in  other  places  he 
speaks  of  God  sending  His  Son  in  the  likeness  of  flesh  (Rom.  viii. 
3;  Gal.  iv.  4).  This  doctrine  is  taught  more  clearly  in  2  Cor. 
viii.  9,  where  the  Apostle  says  that  Christ  who  was  rich  became 
poor  for  men's  sake,  and  most  clearly  in  Philip  ii.  5-8,  where  St. 
Paul  expressly  states  that  Christ  preexisted  "in  the  form  of 
God"  and  "considered  it  no  injustice  to  be  equal  to  God."    The 

1  Edersheim,  Life  and  Times  of  J.,  I.  373. 

2  V.  g.  Streatfeild:  The  Self-interpretation  of  J.  C,  24. 

3  According  to  the  construction  of  the  sentence  that  most  readily  suggests  itself. 
Cf.  Bruce,   St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Christianity,  340. 


188    THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

doctrine  of  preexistence  and  Divine  self-consciousness  is  clearly 
expressed  here.1 

The  Apostle  (in  this  last  mentioned  passage)  goes  on  to  say 
that  Christ  "emptied  Himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant, 
being  made  to  the  likeness  of  man."  This  expression  would  not 
require  the  meaning  that  Jesus  emptied  Himself  of  His  Divine 
self -consciousness.  St.  Paul  is  merely  referring  to  Christ's  as- 
suming human  nature  and  does  not  touch  the  question  of  Jesus' 
knowledge  of  Himself;  that  this  is  so  is  seen  from  another  place 
where  he  says  that  in  Christ  are  "all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and 
knowledge"  (Col.  ii.  3).  The  Pauline  references  to  Christ's  self- 
humiliation,  to  His  taking  the  form  of  man,  to  His  assuming  the 
likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  do  not  include  Christ's  knowledge  and  self- 
consciousness. 

5.  Christ's  sonship  in  the  new  testament 

At  twelve  years  of  age  Jesus  referred  to  God  as  "My  Father." 
This  name  "Father"  was  His  most  frequent  name  for  God.  It 
occurs  45  times  in  Matthew,  5  times  in  Mark,  17  times  in  Luke, 
and  about  90  times  in  John.  As  Sanday  says,  "no  name  of  God 
was  more  constantly  on  the  lips  of  Christ;  and  no  name  so  domi- 
nated the  whole  thought  of  God,  as  He  not  only  cherished  it  for 
Himself,  but  bequeathed  it  to  His  disciples."  2  Jesus  teaches  a 
threefold  grade  in  God's  Fatherhood:  He  is  Father  of  all  men, 
He  is  especially  Father  of  the  disciples,  He  is  in  a  very  special 
manner  Father  of  Jesus  Himself.3 

In  regard  to  the  Synoptics,  there  is  no  doubt  that  Jesus  re- 
served a  peculiar  use  of  the  word  "Father,"  as  a  name  of  God, 
for  His  own  case.  Nowhere  does  He  include  Himself  along  with 
His  disciples  under  the  title  "Our  Father"  —  the  Lord's  Prayer 
not  being  an  exception  since  it  was  prescribed  and  constructed 
for  them.    Many  times  (over  a  score  of  times  in  Matthew,  thrice 

1  Cf .  Schumacher,  Christus  in  seiner  Praexistenz  und  Kenose  nach  Phil.  ii.  5-8. 
Drum  interprets  from  passage,  "He  was  conscious  that  He  was  God  by  nature,  and 
not  by  usurpation,  —  not  by  a  Modernistic  evolution  of  the  Messianic  conscious- 
ness."   Homil.  and  Pastoral  Rev.  XXI.  (1920)  13. 

2  Art.  God,  HDB  II.  209. 

*  Cf.  Stephens,  Theol.  of  New  Test.,  54,  Robertson,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus  con- 
cerning God  the  Father,  43-69. 


THE  WHOLE  N.  T.  ACCOUNT  OF  CHRIST      189 

in  Mark,  nine  times  in  Luke),  Christ  referred  to  God  as  His 
Father;  on  several  occasions  (six  times  in  Matthew,  once  in 
Mark,  thrice  in  Luke),  He  denominates  Himself  "the  Son"  in 
such  a  way  as  to  prove  unmistakably  that  He  regards  Himself 
as  "the  Son  of  God."  1  On  many  other  occasions  where  the 
title  "Son  of  God"  is  applied  to  Him,  He  treats  the  title  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  show  He  adopts  it. 

As  in  the  Synoptics,  so  in  St.  John,  Christ  refers  to  His  Spe- 
cial Divine  Sonship;  the  same  stand  is  taken,  the  difference  being 
that  in  St.  John  it  is  taken  more  explicitly  and  more  frequently. 
Very  frequently  He  calls  Himself  "the  Son,"  and  very  frequently 
He  calls  God  "My  Father."  Indeed  in  St.  John,  Christ  refers  to 
Himself  as  "the  Son  of  God"  (v.  25;  ix.  35,  37;  x.  36;  xi.  4). 
He  teaches  He  preexisted  in  Heaven  with  the  Father  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  (xvii.  5,  24);  He  indicates  the  great 
uniqueness  of  His  Sonship  by  declaring  Himself  to  be  the  only 
begotten  (jaovoy^vy^)  2  Son  of  God  (iii.  16,  18;  cf.  i.  14,  18);  the 
climax  is  when  He  claims  His  Sonship  involves  equality  with  the 
Father:  I  and  the  Father  are  one  (x.  30;  cf.  v.  17;  x.  38). 

Not  only  did  Christ  Himself  claim  to  be  Son  of  God,  but  we 
find  this  title  accorded  to  Him  by  others.  Announcing  His  miracu- 
lous conception  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (thus  giving  a  physical  basis 
for  the  title)  the  angel  Gabriel  foretold  He  would  be  called  "Son 
of  the  Most  High,"  "Son  of  God"  (Luke  i.  32,  35).  From  Heaven 
the  Eternal  Father  proclaimed  Him  His  beloved  Son  at  the  bap- 
tism (Matthew  iii.  17;  Mark  i.  11;  Luke  iii.  22)  and  at  the  Trans- 
figuration (Matthew  xvii.  5;  Mark  ix.  6;  Luke  ix.  35;  cf.  2  Peter 
i.  17).  Demoniacs  addressed  Him  as  Son  of  God  (e.g.  Mark  iii. 
12;  v.  7);  Satan,  too,  mentions  the  title  (Matthew  iv.  3,  6);  St. 
John  the  Baptist  testified  He  was  the  Son  of  God  (John  i.  34); 
Peter  (Matthew  xvi.  16;  John  vi.  70),  Nathaniel  (John  i.  49), 
and  the  disciples  (Matthew  xiv.  33)  are  on  record  as  confessing 
this  fact;  so  did  Martha  (John  xi.  27);  so  did  the  centurion  at 
the  foot  of  the  cross  (Matthew  xxvii.  54;  Mark  xv.  39).  Christ's 
enemies,  who  had  Him  put  to  death,  claimed  that  He  said  He  was 
the  Son  of  God  (Matthew  xxvii.  40,  43;  John  xix.  7). 

1  Cf.  Stalker,  Son  of  God,  HDG  II.  654.    Christology  of  J.,  86. 

J  According  to  Mark  xii.  6,  the  Son,  the  sole  heir  distinguished  from  the  whole 
series  of  servants  is  called  Iva  viov  byaicriTov.  As  Dalman  (op.  cit.  281)  says, 
there  is  no  difference  between  this  and  St.  John's  "only  begotten  Son." 


190     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

As  to  the  evidence  for  the  period  after  Christ's  death,  the 
Acts  tells  us  that  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  professed  before  being 
baptized  "I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God"  (viii. 
37;  cf.  16),  and  that  immediately  after  his  conversion  St.  Paul 
preached  that  Jesus  is  the  "Son  of  God"  (ix.  20).  Writing  in  his 
epistles  only  a  few  decades  afterwards,  St.  Paul  very  frequently 
gives  to  Christ  the  name  "the  Son,"  at  once  contrasting  and  as- 
sociating Him  with  God  "the  Father,"  and  he  mentions  Him  as 
"the  Son  of  God"  (Rom.  i.  4;  v.  10;   1  Cor.  i.  9;  Gal.  iv.  4). 

As  Christ  had  distinguished,  so  St.  Paul  too  distinguishes  be- 
tween Christ's  Sonship  and  the  sonship  of  others;  indeed  (Rom- 
viii.  3,  32)  he  calls  Jesus  God's  own  Son  sent  into  the  world  on 
man's  behalf.  This  use  of  the  word  "own"  corresponds  to 
Christ's  usage  of  the  expression  "My  Father"  and  the  word 
"only-begotten,"  l  and  thus  there  is  expressed  a  Christ ology 
equivalent  to  that  of  the  explicit  pronouncements  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  Especially  is  this  the  case  in  Hebrews  which  frequently 
applies  to  Christ  the  title  "Son  of  God"  (e.g.  iv.  14;  v.  8;  vi.  6; 
vii.  3;  x.  29),  which  while  referring  to  Moses  as  "a  faithful  ser- 
vant" calls  Christ  "a  Son  over  the  household"  (iii.  5,  6),  and 
which  begins  by  saying  that  God  never  applied  Ps.  ii.  7,  "Thou 
art  My  Son,"  etc.  to  anyone  else,  not  even  to  the  angels,  but  re- 
served it  for  Christ  (i.  5;  v.  5).  The  first  Epistle  of  St.  John  fol- 
lows these  same  lines,  with  its  frequent  use  of  titles  "Son,"  "the 
Son  of  God,"  its  use  of  the  expression  "  only  begotten  Son,"  and 
its  clear  pronouncements  on  Christ's  preexistence  (e.g.  1  Jn.  iii. 
8;  iv.  9,  14,  15;  v.  5,  7,  13)  .2  This  epistle  of  St.  John  bears 
testimony  that  the  confession  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  was  the 
cardinal  point  in  the  Christian  Faith. 

1  As  Bruce  (op.  cit.  338)  explains  the  expression  "His  own  Son,"  "not  merely 
the  first  begotten  in  a  large  family,  but  the  only-begotten  in  some  sense." 

2  We  find  in  the  Apoc.  iii.  5,  "My  Father";  God  is  called  "Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,"  1  Pet.  i.  3;  He  is  mentioned  as  "Father"  1  Pet.  i.  17;  Jam.  i.  17,  27; 
Jude  i.  1.  This  Testimony  to  Christ's  Divine  Sonship  and  preexistence  can  be  con- 
tinued through  the  Apostolic  and  sub- Apostolic  Fathers,  see  p.  13.  About  the  mid- 
dle of  2nd  century  the  Marcosians  (whom  Irenaeus  mentions)  were  using  Christ's 
first  words  (Lk.  ii.  49)  in  support  of  their  contention  that  the  Father  whom  Jesus 
announced  was  not  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  and  was  till  then  unknown. 
Irenaeus  implies  that  he  understood  the  Boy  Jesus'  reference  to  His  Father  in  the 
metaphysical  sense.  In  the  following  generation,  Origen  clearly  interprets  real 
Divine  Sonship,  and  this  view  has  been  held  all  down  the  ages  to  the  present  day, 
almost  exclusively  so  till  the  rise  of  modern  Rationalism. 


THE  WHOLE  N.  T.  ACCOUNT  OF  CHRIST      191 

From  the  facts  presented,  it  is  clear  that  the  attributing  to 
Christ  of  a  unique  Divine  Sonship  can  be  traced  back  (almost 
through  every  decade)  to  St.  Paul.  As  Sanday  says,  "if  the  use 
of  'the  Father'  and  'the  Son'  as  theological  terms  belongs  to  the 
early  Church,  it  at  least  goes  back  to  the  very  first  moment  at 
which  we  possess  contemporary  evidence  for  the  vocabulary  of 
that  Church,  and  indeed  to  a  date  which  is  not  more  than  twenty- 
three  years  from  the  ascension  (see  1  Th.  i.  1)."  1  From  that 
time  on  the  Christian  writings  abound  in  references  to  God  as  the 
Father  of  Jesus  and  to  Him  as  "the  Son,"  "the  Son  of  God," 
"God's  own  Son,"  "God's  only  begotten  Son,"  "The  Logos  Who 
was  with  the  Father  before  Creation."  What  is  the  origin  of  this 
vocabulary?  How  are  we  to  account  for  "the  rapid  growth 
within  some  twenty-three  years  of  a  usage  already  so  fixed  and 
stereotyped?"  2  Knowing  the  Jewish  conception  of  God  and  the 
expressions  employed  for  it  in  the  time  of  Christ,  we  cannot  ac- 
count for  it  if  Christ  Himself  is  not  its  cause  and  author.  Yes 
Jesus  Himself  was  the  authority  for  this  vocabulary.  He  fre- 
quently announced  He  was  the  most  special  Son  of  God.  He  an- 
nounced this  even  in  His  first  recorded  words. 

1  Son  of  God,  HDB  IV.  573. 

2  Sanday,  op.  cit. 


CONCLUSION 

The  frequent  use  of  the  name  "Father"  as  applied  to  God 
goes  back  to  the  Saviour.  It  was  His  most  frequent  epithet  for 
God.  He  speaks  of  Him  to  His  followers,  "your  heavenly 
Father";  He  bade  them  repeat  "Our  Father."  Terms  for  God 
such  as,  "the  blessed  One,"  "the  Holy  One,"  "the  Place"  — 
common  to  the  synagogue  of  His  day,  He  does  not  use  at  all. 
He  sparingly  uses  the  title  "Lord."  Christ  strictly  followed  the 
religious  custom  among  the  Jews  in  respect  to  the  use  and  avoid- 
ance of  the  name  God,  but,  "in  such  a  manner  that,  in  conform- 
ing to  it,  He  preserved  a  peculiar  position  of  His  own  by  His 
marked  preference  for  the  appellation  of  God  as  Father."  *  He 
breaks  with  contemporary  usage  and  with  all  previous  usage  in 
His  employment  of  this  name  Father,  sparingly  used  before  the 
time  of  Christ,  and  hardly  ever  in  an  individualistic  sense  by  an 
ordinary  individual.  But  the  great  difference  between  the  usage 
ushered  in  by  Our  Lord  and  what  had  previously  been  in  vogue 
consists  not  alone  in  the  frequency  of  the  title  but  also,  and  espe- 
cially, in  the  content.  In  comparison  with  that  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, it  is  well  said  that  Christ's  doctrine  of  God's  Fatherhood 
"assumes  such  proportions  as  to  amount  to  a  new  revelation."2 
The  history  of  the  question  warrants  our  saying  that  St.  Paul 
(Rom.  viii.  14-17;  Gal.  iv.  4-7;  cf.  John  i.  12)  also  is  witness 
that  "it  was  Jesus  who  first  introduced  into  the  world  the  re- 
ligious spirit  whose  characteristic  cry  Godwards  is  Father." 3 
Christ  uttered  the  last  word  on  the  question  of  God's  Fatherhood 
to  men;  this  conception  is  a  salient  characteristic  of  His  teaching; 
some  even  consider  it  the  essence  of  Christianity. 

In  this  special  doctrine  of  Christ,  God's  Fatherhood  to  man- 
kind, there  is  something  still  greater,  still  more  characteristic, 

1  Dalman,  Words  of  J.,  233. 

2  Sanday,  God,  HDB  II.  208. 

3  Bruce,  St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Christianity,  199. 

192 


CONCLUSION  193 

still  more  special,  namely  God's  special  Fatherhood  to  Jesus  Him- 
self. Christ  teaches  He  is  a  very  special  Son  of  God,  according 
to  many  of  His  recorded  sayings,  and  it  is  clear  that  real  Divine 
Sonship  is  meant.  To  use  the  words  of  Sanday,  "a  scientific  ex- 
amination of  the  Gospels,  whatever  else  it  brings  out,  brings  out 
this,  that  the  root  element  in  the  consciousness  of  Jesus  was  a 
sense  of  Sonship  to  the  Divine  Father,  deeper,  clearer,  more  inti- 
mate, more  all  embracing  and  all  absorbing,  than  ever  was  vouch- 
safed to  a  child  of  man."  l  Christ's  followers  have  always  con- 
sidered and  called  Him  "the  Son  of  God"  because  He  expressed  a 
consciousness  of  being  such,  because  not  putting  Himself  under 
the  same  grade  of  God's  Fatherhood  that  He  taught  for  others, 
not  including  Himself  under  the  "Our  Father"  that  He  bade 
His  disciples  use,  He  appropriated  a  very  special  degree  of  God's 
Fatherhood  for  Himself,  calling  Himself  "the  Son,"  "the  Son  of 
God"  and  using  the  phrase  "My  Father." 

In  regard  to  Himself,  Christ  always  used  the  word  "My"  and 
never  "our"  when  calling  God  "Father."  It  is  a  fact  worth 
noting  that  although  in  the  writings  of  the  Synoptics  the  Saviour 
does  not  appear  as  laying  claim  to  the  actual  title  of  Son  of  God 
in  the  same  direct  way  as  is  recorded  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  yet 
according  to  the  former  the  title  "Son  of  God"  was  applied  to 
Christ  and  Christ's  enemies  alleged  He  said  He  was  the  Son  of 
God.  We  find  in  the  Synoptics  no  basis  for  such  a  charge  other 
than  Christ's  use  of  the  phrase  "My  Father"  which  the  Jews 
took  to  imply  His  Divine  Sonship.  In  the  eyes  of  His  contempo- 
raries therefore,  Christ's  use  of  the  words  "My  Father"  for  God 
was  equivalent  to  His  applying  to  Himself  the  title  "Son  of  God." 
The  word  "My"  signifies  the  distinctive  quality  of  His  Sonship 
and  "it  would  be  difficult  to  exaggerate  its  importance  as  an  ex- 
pression of  the  Messianic  consciousness  and  as  implying  a  tran- 
scendental origin."2  The  "My"  in  Christ's  expression  for  God, 
"My  Father,"  stands  for  what  is  special  in  God's  Fatherhood  to 
Him,  it  represents  His  special  real  Divine  Sonship,  it  corresponds 
to  the  words  "well  beloved,"  "own,"  "only  begotten,"  in  the 
terms  of  this  Sonship.    And  this  expression  "My  Father"  is  fre- 

1  Son  of  God,  HDB  IV.  575. 

2  Streatfeild,  The  Self-interpretation  of  Jesus  Christ,  84. 


194     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

quently  on  Christ's  lips  both  in  the  Synoptics  and  in  St.  John,  it 
appears  among  the  last  words  and  it  appears  among  the  first 
recorded  words. 

The  first  saying  of  Jesus  does  not  merely  enunciate  the  doc- 
trine of  God's  Fatherhood  to  man  —  a  doctrine  which  originated 
an  epoch  in  the  religious  thought  of  the  world,  and  which  at  once 
marked  Christ  as  the  great  religious  teacher  of  the  human  race  — 
but  over  and  above  this,  the  saying  contains  an  expression  of 
God's  special  Fatherhood  to  Jesus  Himself.  He  says  "My  Fa- 
ther," words  which  correspond  to  His  applying  to  Himself  the 
title  of  "Son  of  God,"  words  which  express  all  that  is  special  in 
His  Sonship.  As  D'Arcy  says,  "Jesus  from  His  youth  possessed 
a  consciousness  of  God  as  His  Father,  which  was  utterly  different 
from  the  faith  to  which  others  attain  through  teaching  and  the 
influence  of  religious  surroundings."  l  That  Jesus  at  the  age  of 
twelve  when  yet  only  a  mere  Boy  should  thus  already  reach  the 
highest  point,  the  climax  of  His  teaching,  should  announce  what 
is  distinctive  in  His  special  characteristic  teaching  of  God's  Fa- 
therhood, this  cannot  be  explained  naturally,  but  clearly  shows 
that  Christ  was  not  the  subject  of  merely  natural  development 
and  growth.2 

In  His  youth  Jesus  referred  to  His  special  Divine  Sonship  in 
the  same  way  as  He  did  in  after  life.  The  words  "My  Father" 
in  the  first  recorded  saying  are  uttered  as  a  matter  of  course  and 
in  as  emphatic  a  manner  as  He  ever  did  utter  them;  indeed  here 
they  are  in  contrast  to  the  closest  of  human  ties,  that  of  parents 
to  children,  and  are  reinforced  with  the  sacred  "Must."  Christ's 
expression  of  His  Sonship  in  His  twelfth  year  corresponds  to  all 
His  references  to  His  Sonship  as  found  in  the  New  Testament. 
Nowhere  is  it  said  that  at  any  time  Christ  was  not  aware  of  Di- 
vine Sonship,  nowhere  is  it  intimated  that  He  grew  in  the  knowl- 
edge of  His  Sonship,  rather  the  contrary  opinion  is  everywhere 
implied.  After  examining  Christ's  sayings  and  not  being  able  to 
find  anywhere  what  idea  He  entertained  in  regard  to  the  genesis 

1  Consciousness,  HDG  I.  363. 

2  As  Reinhard  asks,  "Tell  me  how  a  common  indigent  lad  of  Galilee  who  had 
never  enjoyed  any  of  those  advantages  calculated  to  fill  the  mind  with  great  con- 
ceptions and  mighty  resolutions  could  have  struck  upon  a  thought  to  which  the 
greatest  men  before  Him  had  never  approached?"  Plan  of  the  Founder  of  Christ.  263. 


CONCLUSION  195 

of  His  Divine  Sonship,  Dalman  confesses  that  the  utterances  "ap- 
pear to  imply  that  Jesus  had  shown  no  cognizance  of  any  begin- 
ning to  this  relationship.  It  seems  to  be  an  innate  property  of 
His  Personality/ ' *  The  meaning  of  the  words  "My  Father"  did 
not  change  for  Jesus;  they  are  given  by  St.  Luke  in  ii.  49  with- 
out comment,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  one  should  not  attach 
the  same  meaning  to  them  here  as  in  other  places  of  the  sacred 
record,  because  one  should  consider  them  in  the  context  of  this 
Third  Gospel,  and  in  the  context  of  the  New  Testament, — it  being 
a  foremost  canon  of  interpretation  that  a  matter  be  decided  ac- 
cording to  the  context  and  according  to  the  spirit  of  the  whole 
work. 

The  main  arguments  for  the  interpretation  of  real  Divine  Son- 
ship  from  Jesus'  first  recorded  words  are:  (1)  The  Virgin  Birth 
previously  described,  suggesting  that  the  words  "My  Father"  in 
Luke  ii.  49  are  fraught  with  metaphysical  meaning.  (2)  Christ's 
later  preaching  describing  the  nature  of  His  Divine  Sonship  as 
real  Divine  Sonship.  (3)  Unbroken  tradition  that  Jesus'  decla- 
ration of  Divine  Sonship  in  His  twelfth  year  and  His  later  decla- 
rations express  real  Divine  Sonship.  These  arguments  require 
that  Jesus  expressed  in  His  first  recorded  words  more  than  mere 
Messianic  consciousness.  They  require  that  the  Sonship  he  an- 
nounced was  more  than  a  mere  ethical  relationship  to  God.2  The 
view  of  "ordinary  Israelitic  consciousness"  is  rejected  even  by 
the  very  facts  of  the  Temple  episode  itself,  the  Boy's  overriding 
ordinary  duties  to  parents,  His  word  "must"  and  His  word 
"My."  There  is  no  historical  evidence  whatsoever  for  any  view 
of  "dawning  consciousness."  There  is  no  hesitation  or  self -limi- 
tation in  Christ's  words.  He  is  as  emphatic  and  matter-of-course 
about  His  Sonship  as  He  ever  was.  His  special  term  for  God 
"My  Father"  is  fully  uttered.  Entire  conviction,  complete  con- 
sciousness of  Divine  Sonship  is  expressed.  In  the  light  of  the 
whole  New  Testament,  in  the  light  of  Christ's  own  expressions  in 

1  Words  of  J.,  285. 

2  Dalman  writes:  "Nowhere  do  we  find  that  Jesus  called  Himself  the  Son  of 
God  in  such  a  sense  as  to  suggest  a  mere  religious  and  ethical  relation  to  God." 
(Words  of  J.,  287.)  Besides,  as  Stalker  (Son  of  God,  HDG  II.  654)  says:  "The 
closeness  of  the  ethico-religious  relation  may  be  such  as  to  demand  a  metaphysical 
relationship  of  an  intimate  and  peculiar  kind  between  Father  and  Son."  If  this  is 
true  anywhere,  it  is  true  in  the  text  in  hand. 


196     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

regard  to  His  Divine  Sonship,  in  the  light  of  the  tradition  of  this 
Sonship  going  back  to  St.  Paul,  in  the  light  of  the  history  of  the 
exegesis  of  Luke  ii.  49,  the  only  consistent  view  is  that  of  real 
Divine  Sonship. 

This  is  why  the  first  recorded  saying,  Luke  ii.  49,  is  of  great 
importance  for  modern  scholars,  namely  on  account  of  its  bear- 
ing on  the  modern  problem  of  tracing  the  growth  and  develop- 
ment of  Jesus'  self-consciousness.  The  view  and  theories  that  are 
not  based  on  the  first  words  are  not  according  to  the  historical 
documents.  The  theories  widely  held  in  the  non-Catholic  world 
of  a  gradual  and  as  it  were  natural  development  of  Christ's  self- 
consciousness,  of  the  awakening  of  His  Messianic  consciousness 
at  the  baptism,  of  doubts  and  crises  in  His  self -consciousness  that 
existed  even  during  the  Public  Life,  these  views  are  entirely  ex- 
cluded by  the  Gospel  text.  At  least  according  to  Luke  ii.  49, 
Christ  at  the  age  of  twelve  was  fully  aware  of  His  real  Divine 
Sonship.  His  expression  of  this  fact  is  made  with  such  calmness 
and  indeed  emphasis  that  there  is  left  no  ground  or  basis  for  any 
view  that  His  self-consciousness  was  then  awakening.  Jesus  was 
fully  self-consciousness  then,  and  there  are  no  signs  or  hints  in 
His  saying  or  in  any  text  of  the  Scripture  of  any  dawning  con- 
sciousness or  of  any  time  when  His  self-consciousness  of  Divine 
Sonship  was  wanting  to  Him.  The  inspired  records  thus  imply, 
what  is  handed  down  in  tradition,  that  there  never  was  a  moment 
when  Christ  did  not  know  exactly  the  nature  of  His  filial  relation 
to  God.1 

Christ's  self -consciousness  or,  to  speak  more  correctly,  His 
own  testimony  to  Himself,  is  one  of  the  chief  supports  of  the  be- 
lief in  His  Divinity  —  the  other  being  the  performance  of  mira- 
cles in  confirmation  of  what  He  said.  Hence  for  this  question 
also  the  words  of  the  Boy  Jesus  are  important.  Indeed  the  mere 
fact  that  contrary  to  all  ordinary  laws  of  development  and  ex- 

1  Tradition  has  it  that  Christ's  knowledge  had  its  source  and  principle  in  the 
Hypostatic  Union  and  dated  from  the  first  moment  of  this  Union,  i.e.,  His  con- 
ception. Owen  (Comment,  on  Gospel  of  Luke,  44)  had  already  argued  with  force 
against  Olshausen's  theory  of  a  gradual  development  of  Christ's  consciousness. 
See  the  able  statement  of  Dalman:  Words  of  J.,  286.  Du  Bose  says,  "There  was 
never  a  time  in  the  history  of  His  consciousness  when  His  divinity  was  wholly  latent 
or  lay  completely  beneath  the  activities  of  His  human  mind."  (The  Consciousness 
of  Jesus,  29.) 


CONCLUSION  197 

elusive  of  every  natural  explanation  Christ  at  a  tender  age  should 
declare  His  real  Divine  Sonship,  is  in  itself  a  strong  argument  for 
His  Divinity.  There  can  be  no  question  here  of  His  not  being  in 
His  proper  senses,  of  His  being  deceived,  or  of  His  wishing  to  de- 
ceive; such  theories  are  excluded  by  the  preternatural  knowledge 
previously  displayed,  by  the  sincerity  of  the  reply,  by  the  occa- 
sion which  drew  it  forth,  and  by  its  reverential  acceptance  on  the 
part  of  the  parents. 

Certainly  He  could  not  be  deceiving;  at  His  age  one  could 
hardly  be  capable  of  such  a  deception;  to  be  deluded  into  the 
belief  in  His  own  Divine  Sonship  would  presuppose  years  of 
thought  and  experience  and  would  be  wofully  out  of  keeping  with 
the  character  of  a  pious  Jewish  lad  come  from  a  country  town  on 
a  pilgrimage  to  the  Holy  City  to  celebrate  with  beating  heart  and 
warm  affection  Jahweh's  feast  in  Jahweh's  house.  That  the 
most  sincere,  the  most  humble,  the  most  saintly  Person  who  ever 
lived,  the  "Man  approved  of  God  ...  by  miracles  and  wonders 
and  signs"  (Acts  ii.  22),  should  as  a  mere  Boy,  and  in  opposition 
to  the  claims  of  His  earthly  parents,  declare  that  He  was  the  Son 
of  God,  a  claim  unique  in  history,  would  seem  to  have  only  one 
explanation:  that  He  was  compelled  to  do  so  by  the  greatest  of 
realities  —  the  Divine  Nature  which  was  in  Him  and  which  must 
proclaim  itself. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I 
LIST  OF  WORKS  QUOTED  « 

Abbott,  Lyman,  A  Life  of  Christ,  2  ed.  New  York,  1882. 
Adamson,  Thomas,  Studies  of  the  mind  in  Christ,  Edinburgh, 

1898. 
Adeney,  W.  F.,  The  transcendental  element  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  Christ,  AmJTh  III  (1889)  99  ff. 

,  St.  Luke,  in  the  New  Century  Bible,  New  York,  1914. 

*Aelredus,  Abb.  Revallis,  Tractatus  de  Jesu  Puero  duodenni, 

M.PL  CLXXXIV.  830-870. 
*Aiken,  Charles  F.,  The  Dhamma  of  Gotama  the  Buddha  and 

the  Gospel  of  Jesus  the  Christ,  Boston,  1900. 
*Albertus  Magnus,   In  Evangelium  Lucae,  Opera  omnia,  ed. 

Borgnet,  vol.  22,  Parisiis,  1894. 
*Alcuin  (or  Albinus),  B.  F.,  Adversus  Felicem,  lib.  VII.  1,  n.  12. 

M.PL  CI.  137. 
*Alexander,   Natalis,   Expositio  litteralis    s.    Evangelii    Jesu 
Christi  secundum  Marcum,  Lucam  et  Joannem,    torn.    2, 
Venetiis,  1782. 
*Alexander  of  Hales,  Summae  theologiae  pars  tertia,  Venetiis, 

1575. 
Alford,  Henry,  The  Greek  Testament,  New  York,  1859. 
Anderson,  Frederick  L.,  The  Man  of  Nazareth,  New  York, 

1914. 
Andrews,  S.,  The  Life  of  our  Lord  upon  the  earth,  New  York, 

1892. 
Angus,  S.,  The  environment  of  early  Christianity,  New  York, 

1915. 
*Anselm,  Saint,  Homilia  VII.  in  Evangelium  secundum  Lucam, 

Opera  ed.  D.  G.  Gerberon,  2  ed.  Lutetiae  Parisiorum,  1721. 
Apocrypha   and   Pseudepigrapha    of    the    Old  Testament  (ed. 
Charles),  Oxford,  1913. 

1  Catholic  authors  are  marked  with  an  *,  The  Fathers  are  not  given  here. 

199 


200     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

*Aretius,  Benedictus,   Commentarii   in   Domini  nostri  J.   C. 

Nov.  Testamentum  cum  indicibus  locupletissimis,  Parisii, 

1607. 
Bacon,  Benjamin  W.,  Christianity  old  and  new,  New  Haven, 

1914. 
Baldensperger,    Wilhelm,    Das    Selbstbewusstsein    Jesu    im 

Lichte   der   messianischen   Hoffnungen   seiner   Zeit,    2   ed. 

Strassburg,  1892. 
Baljon,  J.  M.  S.,  Commentaar  op  het  Evangelie  van   Lukas, 

Utrecht,  1908. 
*Bardenhewer,  Otto,  Patrology,  the  lives    and   works    of  the 

Fathers  of  the   Church,   2  ed.  transl.    by  T.  J.  Shahan, 

Freiburg  im  Breisgau,  1908. 
,   Maria   Verkundigung,   ein    Kommentar    zu   Lukas   I. 

26-38,  BSt  X  (1905). 
Barnard,  D.  Mordaunt,  Business,  HDG  I.  243. 
Barnes,  Albert,  Notes,  explanatory  and  practical  on  the  Gos- 
pels, designed  for  Sunday  school  teachers  and  Bible  classes, 

vol.  2,  New  York,  1851. 
Barrows,  Samuel  J.,  Mythical  and  legendary  elements  in  the 

New  Testament,  NW  VIII  (1899)  272. 
Barth,  Fritz,  Die  Hauptprobleme  des  Lebens  Jesu,  Giitersloh, 

1911. 
*Bartmann,    Bernhard,    Das    Himmelreich    und    sein    Konig, 

Paderborn,  1904. 
,  Christus  ein  Gegner  des  Marienkultus?    Jesus  und  seine 

Mutter  in  den  heiligen  Evangelien,  gemeinverstandlich  dar- 

gestellt,  Freiburg,  Breisgau,  1909. 
Barton,  W.  E.,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  Boston,  1904. 
*Batiffol,  P.,  Evangiles  Apocryphes,  VDB  II.  2114. 
Bauer,  Bruno,  Kritik  der  Evangelien  und  Geschichte  ihres 

Ursprungs,  erster  Theil,  2  ed.  Berlin,  1851. 
*Bede,  Venerable,  In   Lucae   Evangelium   expositio,    lib.    I., 

M.PL  XCII.  348-350.     Also  Homil.  XII.  Dominica  prima 

post  Epiphaniam,  M.PL  XCIV.  Q5  ff. 
Beecher,  Henry  Ward,  The  Life  of  Jesus  the  Christ,  New  York, 

1871. 
Beet,  Joseph  Agar,  The  "Father's  Business,"  Homiletic  Rev. 

XXXIV  (1897)  242-243. 

,  Christology,  HDB  I.  386-389. 

Bengel,  John  Albert,  Gnomon  of  the  New  Testament,  transl. 

by  C.  F.  Lewis  and  M.  P.  Vincent,  Philadelphia,  1860. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  201 

Bergh  van  Eysinga,  Indische  Einflusse  auf  evangelische  Erzah- 

lungen,  Gottingen,  1914. 
*Bernardinus   a   Picinio,   Sanctus  Lucas  et  sanctus  Joannes, 

Opera  omnia,  torn.  2,  Parisiis,  1872. 
Berthe,  Augustine,  Jesus  Christ;   His  life,  etc.,  transl.  from 

the  French  by  E.  Girardy,  St.  Louis,  1914. 
Besser,  M.  F.,  Das  Evangelium  St.  Luca  in  Bibelstunden  fur 

die  Gemeinde  ausgelegt,  3  ed.  Halle,  1854. 
Beyschlag,  Willibald,  New  Testament  Theology,  transl.  by 

Neil  Buchanan,  Edinburgh,  1895. 
Beze,  Theodor,  Jesu  Christi  D.  N.  Novum  Testamentum  .  .  . 

Londini,  1587. 
*Billot,  Ludovicus,  De  Verbo  Incarnato,  Comment,  in  III.,  S. 

Thomae,  Romae,  1900. 
*Bisping,  Aug.,  Erklarung  der  Evangelien  nach  Markus  und 

Lukas,  2  ed.,  Minister,  1863. 
Blass,  Friedrich,  Evangelium  secundum  Lucam,  sive  Lucae  ad 

Theophilum  liber  prior,  Lipsiae,  1897. 

,  Philology  of  the  Gospels,  London,  1898. 

Bleek,    Freidrich,    Synoptische    Erklarung    der    drei    ersten 

Evangelien  herausgegeben  von  H.  Holtzmann,  vol.  I.,  Leip- 
zig, 1862. 
Bloomfield,  S.  T.,  The  Greek  Testament  with  English  notes, 

critical,  philological,  and  exegetical,  IV.,  Philadelphia,  1854. 
Blunt,  Henry,  Lectures  upon  the  history  of  our   Lord   and 

Saviour  J.  C,  Philadelphia,  1857. 
Blunt,  John  Henry,  The  annotated  Bible,  being  a  household 

commentary  upon  the  Holy  Scriptures,  London,  1882. 
Boardman,  George  D.,  The  Divine  Man  from  the  Nativity  to 

the  temptation,  New  York,  1887. 
Boehmer,  Julius,  Das  Lukas  Evangelium  in  religiosen  Betrach- 

tungen  fiir  das  moderne  Bedurfnis,  Gutersloh,  1909. 
*Bolo,  Henri,  Histoire  de  L'Enfant  Jesus,  2  ed.,  Paris,  1896. 
*Bonaventura,    S.,    Commentarius  in   Lucam,    Opera    omnia, 

torn.    7,    ed.   Collegio  A.    S.    Bonaventura   Quaracchi,    ex 

Typographis  Colleg.  S.  Bon. 
Bond,  John,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  London,  1900. 
Bornemann,  Johannes,  Die  Taufe  Christi  durch  Johannes  in 

der  dogmatischen  Beurteilung  der   christlichen   Theologen 

der  vier  ersten  Jahrhunderte,  Leipzig,  1896. 
Bossuet,  Jacques,  filevationes  sur  les  Mysteres,  oeuvres  com- 
pletes, ed.  J.  Tachet,  Paris,  1862. 


202     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Bousset,  Wilhelm,  Jesus,  transl.  by  J.  Penrose  Trevelyan,  New 

York,  1908. 
,  Die  Religion  des    Judentums    im    neutestamentlichen 

Zeitalter,  Berlin,  1903. 
*Botjrdaloue,  Louis,  Sermon  pour  le  premier  dimanche  apres 

Epiphanie,  oeuvres  completes,  Lyon-Paris,  1906. 
Bovon,  Jules,  Theologie  du  Nouveau  Testament,  2  ed.,  torn.  I., 

Lausanne,  1902. 
Box,  G.  H.,  The  Virgin  Birth,  HDG  II.  804  ff. 
,  The    Gospel    narratives    of     the     Nativity    and    the 

alleged    influence    of    Heathen    ideas,    ZntlW   VI    (1905) 

80-101. 
-,  The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus,  a  critical  examination  of  the 


Gospel  narratives  of  the  Nativity,  London,  1916. 
Brassac,  A.,  Manuel  Biblique,  3  ed.,  torn.  3,  Paris,  1910. 
,  The  Gospels-Jesus  Christ,  transl.  by  J.  Weidenham, 

London,  1913. 
Briggs,  C.  A.,  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels,  New  York,  1894. 

,  New  Light  on  the  Life  of  Jesus,  New  York,  1904. 

Brotjgh,  J.,  The  early  Life  of  Our  Lord,  London,  1897. 
Brown,  David,  The  Life  of  Jesus  prior  to  His  Public  Ministry, 

ExpT  VI  (1894-5)  415. 
Bruce,  Alexander,  St.  Paul's  conception  of  Christianity,  New 

York,  1894. 
*Bruno,  S.,  Episc.  Signensis,  Comment,  in  Lucam,  M.PL  CLXV. 

365. 
Bucer,  M.,  Enarrationum  in   Evangelia  Matthaei,    Marci    et 

Lucae,  lib.  I.,  Argeniorati,  1527. 
Budham,  F.  P.,  The  integrity  of  Luke  i.  5-11,  ExpT  VIII  (1896- 

7)  116  ff. 
Burkitt,   William,  Exposition,  notes   and  practical   observa- 
tions on  the  New  Testament  of  Our  Lord  and  Saviour  J.  C, 

vol.  I.,  Philadelphia,  1849. 
Burnside,  W.  F.,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  Expositor's 

Bible,  3  ed.  London,  1908. 
*Caietanus,  Thomas  de  Vio,  Commentarii  in  Script uram  S., 

torn.  III.,  Lugduni,  1639. 
*Calmet,  Augustinus,  Commentarius  litteralis  in  omnes  libros 

Novi  Testamenti,  transl.  by  J.  D.  Mansi,  torn.  II.,  Wirce- 

burgi,  1787. 
Calovius,  Abraham,  Biblia  illustrata  Novi  Testamenti,  Dresdae 

et  Lipsiae,  1710. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  203 

Calvin,  John,  Commentarius  m  in  harmoniam  Evangelicam;  also 

Sermons  sur  l'harmonie  Evangelique,  38,  39.     Opera  quae 

supersunt  omnia,  vols.  45,  46.    Edit,  by  Baum,  E.  Cunitz 

and  E.  Reuss  (Corp.  Reform),  Brunsvigae,  1891. 
Campbell,  George,  The  four  Gospels,  transl.  from  the  Greek 

with  preliminary  dissertation  and  notes  critical  and  explan- 
atory, Philadelphia,  1796. 
Campbell,  R.  J.,  The  new  theology,  New  York,  1907. 
Candlish,  J.  S.,  Children  (sons,  daughters)  of  God,  HDB  II. 

215-221. 
*Canisius,  Peter,  Commentariorum  de  Verbi  Dei  corruptelis, 

torn.  2,  de  sacrosancta  Virgine  Maria  Deipara,   Parisiis, 

1584. 
*Capecelatro,  Alfonso,  La  Vita  di  Gesu  Cristo,  vol.  I.,  Roma, 

1887. 
Cappellus,  Lud.,  In  Biblia  Critica,  vol.  6,  286. 
Carman,  Augustini,  S.,  Philo's  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Father 

and  the  Virgin  Birth,  AmJTh  IX  (1905)  491-518. 
Carpenter,  S.  C,  Christianity  according  to  S.  Luke,  London, 

1919. 
Carr,  Arthur,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  London,  1875. 
Cartwritus,  Thomas,  Commentaria  practica  in  totam  historiam 

evangelicam  ex  quatuor  evangelistis  harmonice  c«n-cinna- 

tam,  Londonini,  1630. 
*Catenae  Graecorum  Patrum,  Edit.  J.   A.   Cramer,  torn.  2, 

Oxford,  1844. 
Charles,  R.  H.,  Religious  development  between  the  Old  and 

New  Testament,  New  York,  1915. 
*Chateillon,  Sebastian,  Biblia  interprete  Sebastiano  Castalione 

una  cum  ejusdem  annotationibus,  Basileae,  1551. 
Clarke,  Adam,  The   New   Testament,   text    with   comment., 

Baltimore,  1836. 
Clemens,  John  S.,  Childhood,  the  Childhood  of  Jesus,  HDG  I. 

298  ff. 
*Coghlan,  Daniel,  De  Incarnatione,  Dublini,  1910. 
Conrady,  L.,  Die  Quelle  der  kanonischen  Kindheitsgeschichte 

Jesu,  Ein  wissenschaftlicher  Versuch,  Gottingen,  1900. 
Cooke,  R.  J.,  The  Incarnation  and  recent  criticism,  New  York, 

1907. 
*Corderius,  Balthasar,  Catena  sexaginta  quinque  graecorum 

patrum    in    s.    Lucam  .  .  .  et    annotationibus    illustrata, 

Antwerpiae,  1628-47. 


204    THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Cremer,  Hermann,  Biblisch-theologisches  Worterbuch  der  ntl. 
Gracitat,  Gotha,  1902,  transl.  by  W.  Urwich,  Edinburgh, 
1892. 
Critici  Sacri,  sive  annotata  doctissimorum  virorum  in  Vet.  et 

Nov.  Test.,  Amstelodami,  1698. 
*Curci,  Carlo  M.,  II  Nuovo  Testamento  volgarizzato  ed  exposto 

in  note  esegetiche  e  morali,  Roma,  1879. 
Daab,  Jesus  von  Nazareth,  wie  wir  ihn  heute  sehen,  Leipzig,  1907. 
Dalman,  Gtjstaf,  The  Words  of  Jesus  considered  in  the  light  of 
post-biblical  writings  and  the  Aramaic  language,  transl.  by- 
Kay,  Edinburgh,  1909. 
D'Arcy,  Charles  F.,  Consciousness,  HDG  I.  361  ff. 
Davis,  N.,  The  Story  of  the  Nazarene  in  annotated  paraphrase, 

New  York,  1903. 
Delitzsch,  Franz,  Hebrew  New  Testament,  13  ed.,  Berlin,  1904. 
Denney,  James,  Jesus  and  the  Gospel,  Christianity  justified  in 

the  mind  of  Christ,  New  York,  1909. 
*Denzinger,  Henricus,  Enchiridion  symbolorum  definitionum 
et  declarationum  de  rebus  fidei  et  morum,  12  ed.  Freiburgi, 
1911. 
Dickenson,  C.  H.,  The  perfecting  of  Jesus,  in  And  R  XVII 

(1892)  339-360. 
Dickey,  Samuel,  The  significance  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  for 
His  conception  of  His  authority,   BW   (N.S.)   XXXVII 
(1911)  359-368. 
*Didon,  Rev.  Father,  Jesus  Christ,  Our  Saviour's  Person,  mis- 
sion and  spirit,  transl.  by  B.  O'Reilly,  New  York,  1891. 
*Dionysius  Cartusianus,  Opera  Omnia,  V.,  Monstrolii,  1898. 
Doderlein,  Jul.,  Das  Lernen  des  Jesusknaben,  NJdTh  I  (1892) 

606-619;  cf.  Think.  Ill  (1893)  171-174. 
Dods,  Marcus,  Baptism,  in  HDG  I.  170. 

Dollinger,  John  J.,  The  Gentile  and  the  Jew  in  the  courts  of  the 
Temple  of  Christ,  vol.  2,  transl.  by  N.  Dorrell,  London, 
1906. 
Doren,  W.  H.  van,  A  suggestive  commentary  on  St.  Luke  with 

critical  and  homiletic  notes,  vol.  I.,  New  York,  1868. 
Dorner,  J.  A.,  History  of  the  development  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Person  of  Christ,  transl.  by  W.  L.  Alexander,  Edinburgh, 
1872. 
*Drum,  Walter,  The  Consciousness  of  the  preexisting  Christ,  a 
study  of  Philip,  ii.  6,  Homiletic  and  Past.  Rev.  XXI  (1920) 
11-15. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  205 

Du  Bose,  Horace  M.,  The  consciousness  of  Jesus,  New  York, 

1917. 
♦Duchesne,  Mgr.  Louis,  Early  history  of  the  Church,  from  its 
foundation  to  the  end  of  the  third  century,  transl.  from  the 
4th  French  ed.,  New  York,  1909. 
*Durand,  A.,  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the 
Canonical  Gospels,  transl.  by  J.  Bruneau,  Philadelphia,  1910. 

Ebrard,  J.  H.  A.,  The  Gospel  History,  A  Compendium  of  criti- 
cal investigations  in  support  of  the  historical  character  of 
the  Four  Gospels,  transl.  by  A.  Bruce,  Edinburgh,  1876. 

Edersheim,  Alfred,  The  life  and  times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah, 
8  ed.,  New  York,  1912. 

,  The  Temple,  its  ministry  and  services  as  they  were  at 

the  time  of  Christ,  New  York,  n.  d. 
-,  In  the  days  of  Christ,  Sketches  of  Jewish  social  life, 


New  York,  n.  d. 
Ellicott,  C.  J.,  Historical  lectures  on  the  Life  of  Our  Lord  J.  C, 

with  notes  critical,  historical  and  explanatory,  Boston,  1864. 
Erasmus,  D.,  Novum  Testamentum  .  .  .  cum  annotationibus 

.  .  .  Basileae,  1541.  Quoted  in  Biblia  Critica,  torn.  VI.,  275. 

,  Paraphrase  upon  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  London,  1548. 

*Estius,  Guilielmus,  Annotationes  aureae  in  praecipua  ac  diffi- 

ciliora  Sacrae  Scripturae  loca.    Coloniae  Agrippinae,  1622. 
*Euthymius,    Zigabenus,    Commentarius    in    Lucam,    M.PG 

CXXIX.  897. 
Evans,  Daniel,  The  self-consciousness  of  Jesus,  AndthSB  II 

(1891)  16-19. 
Ewald,  Heinrich,  Die  drei  ersten  Evangelien  und  die  Apostel- 

geschichte  ubersetzt  und  erklart,  2  ed.  Gottingen,  1871. 
,  The  History  of  Israel,  vol.  VI.,  transl.  by  J.  F.  Smith, 

London,  1883. 
*Fabrus,   Jacobus  Stapulensus,   Commentarium  initiatorium 

in  quatuor  Evangelia,  Coloniae,  1541. 
Fairbain,  A.  M.,  Studies  in  the  Life  of  Christ,  New  York,  1897. 
Fairweather,  William,  Development   of  doctrine,  HDB  Ex. 

vol.  272-308. 
,  The    background  of  the  Gospels;    or  Judaism  in  the 

period  between  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  Edinburgh, 

1908. 
Farmer,  George,  "Boyhood,"  "Boyhood  of  Jesus,"  HDG  I. 

221-230. 
Farrar,  Frederic  W.,  The  life  of  Christ,  New  York,  1888. 


206     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Farrar,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  Cambridge,  1912. 
Faut,  S.,  Die  Christologie  seit  Schleiermacher,  ihre  Geschichte 

und  ihre  BegrUndung,  Tubingen,  1907. 
Feine,  Paul,  Eine  vorkanonische  tlberlieferung  des  Lukas  in 

Evangelium    und   Apostelgeschichte,    Eine    Untersuchung, 

Gotha,  1891. 

,  Theologie  des  Neuen  Testaments,  Leipzig,  1912. 

*Felder,  Hilarin,  Jesus  Christus,  Apologie  seiner  Messianitat 

und  Gottheit  gegeniiber  der  neuesten  unglaubigen  Jesus- 

Forschung,    vol.    I.,    Das    Bewusstsein    Jesu,    Paderborn, 

1911. 
Feldman,  W.  M.,  The  Jewish  Child,  Its  history,  folklore,  biology 

and  sociology,  London,  1917. 
Felton,  Joseph,  Neutestamentliche  Zeitgeschichte  oder  Juden- 

tum  und  Heidentum  zur  Zeit   Christi  und    der  Apostel, 

Regensburg,  1910. 
Field,  Frederick,  Notes  on  the  translation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, being  the  Otium  Norvicense   (Pars  Tertia),  Cam- 
bridge, 1899.    See  also  a  review  in  ExpT  X  (1898-9)  484. 
*Fillion,  Cl.,  Evangile  selon  S.  Luc.  Introduction  critique  et 

Commentaires,  Paris,  1882. 
,  Le  developpement  intellectuel  et  moral  de  Jesus.     In 

Rclfr,  April  1  and  April  15,  1914. 
Findlay,  A.  F.,  Gospels  (Apocryphal),  HDB  I.  671-685. 
Fleetwood,  John,  The  Life  of  Our  Lord  and  Saviour  J.  C, 

Philadelphia,  1855. 
Foote,  James,  Lectures  on  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  vol. 

I.,  Edinburgh,  1858. 
Foxell,  W.  J.,  The  Temptation  of  Jesus,  a  study,  London,  1920. 
*Fouard,  Constant,  The  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  5  ed.,  transl.  by 

Griff eth,  New  York,  1891. 
Frederick,  Henry  Alfred,  The  self-consciousness  of   Jesus, 

AndthSB  II  (1891)  19-22. 
Furrer,  Konrad,  Das  Leben  Jesu  Christi,  3  ed.,  Leipzig,  1905. 
Garvie,  Alfred  E.,  Studies  in  the  Inner  Life  of  Jesus,  London, 

1907. 
,  The  Gospel  accord,  to  St.  Luke,  Westminster  New  Test., 

vol.  III. 
Gates,  Herbert  Wright,    The    life   of  Jesus,  A  manual  for 

teachers,  Chicago,  1907. 
Geikie,  Cunningham,  The  life  and  words  of  Christ,  New  York, 

1902. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  207 

Gelpke,  Ernst  Friedrich,  Die  Jugendgeschichte  des  Herrn; 
ein  Beitrag  zur  hoheren  Kritik  und  Exegese  des  neuen 
Testaments,  Bern,  1841. 

George,  E.  A.,  The  Gospels  of  the  Infancy,  in  OT-NTSt  X 
(1890)  281  ff. 

Gess,  Wolfgang  E.,  Christi  Person  und  Werk  nach  Christi 
Selbstzeugniss  und  den  Zeugnissen  der  Apostel,  Basel,  1887. 

*Gigot,  Francis,  The  Virgin  Birth  in  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  IthQ 
VIII  (1913)  412-434. 

,  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  NYE,  I  (91895)  3. 

Gilbert,  George  Holley,  The  student's  life  of  Jesus,  Chicago, 
1896. 

,  Father,  Fatherhood,  HDG  I.  579-582. 

Godet,  F.,  A  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke,  2  ed., 
transl.  by  E.  W.  Shalders  and  W.  D.  Cousin,  New  York,  1881. 

,  The  Life  of  Jesus  prior  to  His  Ministry,  Think.    VII 

(1895)  390-404. 

Gore,  Charles,  Dissertation  on  subjects  connected  with  the 
Incarnation,  New  York,  1895. 

Goulburn,  Edward  M.,  The  Gospel  of  the  Childhood,  a  practi- 
cal and  devotional  commentary  on  the  simple  recorded  inci- 
dent of  O.  B.  L.'s  Childhood,  Lk.  ii.  41-52,  New  York,  1873. 

Gould,  Ezra  P.,  The  biblical  theology  of  the  New  Testament, 

New  York,  1900. 
*Grimm,  Joseph,  Das  Leben  Jesu  nach  den  vier  Evangelien. 
Geschichte  der  Kindheit  Jesu,  Regensburg,  1906. 

Guignebert,  Charles,  Manuel  d'histoire  ancienne  du  Chre- 
tianisme,  les  origines,  Paris,  1906. 

Guyse,  John,  The  practical  expositor,  or  an  explanation  of  the 
New  Testament  in  the  form  of  a  paraphrase,  vol.  2,  Glas- 
gow, 1792. 

Hacker,  Johannes,  Die  Jungfrauen  —  Geburt  und  das  neue 
Testament  Exeg.  Untersuchung,  ZWTh  XLIX  (1906)  18-61. 

Hahn,  G.  L.,  Das  Evangelium  des  Lucas,  vol.  I.,  Breslau,  1892. 

Hall,  Francis,  The  kenotic  theory  consid.  with  ref.  to  its  an- 
glican  forms  and  arguments,  New  York,  1898. 

,  The  Incarnation,  New  York,  1915. 

Hall,  G.  Stanley,  Jesus,  the  Christ  in  the  light  of  psychology, 
New  York,  1917. 

Hanna,  W.,  The  earlier  years  of  our  Lord's  life  on  earth,  New 
York,  1870. 

Harden,  J.  M.,  Mary,  the  Virgin,  HDG  II.  140. 


208     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Harnack,  Adolf,  What  is  Christianity?  transl.  by  T.  Saunders, 

London,  1901. 
,  Luke  the  Physician,  the  author  of  the  Third  Gospel  and 

the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  transl.  by  Wilkinson,  New  York,  1908. 
,  The  Sayings  of  Jesus,  The  second  source  of  St.  Matthew 

and  St.  Luke,  transl.  by  Wilkinson,  New  York,  1908. 
-,  The  Date  of  the  Acts  and  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  transl. 


by  Wilkinson,  New  York,  1911. 

Hartmann,  Julius,  Das  Leben  Jesu  nach  den  Evangelien 
geschichtlich  dargestellt  fur  gebildete  Leser,  Stuttgart,  1839. 

Hase,  Carl,  The  Life  of  Jesus,  a  manual  for  academic  study,  4 
ed.,  transl.  by  J.  F.  Clarke,  Boston,  1860. 

,  Geschichte  Jesu  nach  akademischen  Vorlesungen,  Leip- 
zig, 1876. 

Hase,  Karl  A.,  New  Testament  parallels  in  Buddhistic  litera- 
ture, New  York,  1907. 

Hastings,  James,  The  great  texts  of  the  Bible,  St.  Luke  (edit, 
by  J.  Hastings),  New  York,  1913. 

Hausrath,  Adolf,  A  History  of  the  New  Testament  times,  the 
time  of  Jesus,  transl.  by  C.  Poynting  and  P.  Quenger,  vol.  I., 
London,  1878. 

,  Jesus  und  die  neutestamentlichen  Schriftsteller,  Band  II., 

Berlin,  1909. 

Hawkins,  J.  C,  Horae  Synopticae,  Oxford,  1909. 
*Haymonis,  Halberstat,  Episc,  Homilia  17  Dominica  prima 

post  Epiphaniam,  M.PL  CXVIII.  120-126. 
*Heer,  M.,  Die  Stammbaume  Jesu  nach  Matthaus  und  Lukas, 
BSt  XV  Freiburg  i.  B.,  1910. 

Henry,  Matthew,  An  exposition  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment, vol.  8,  London,  1866. 

Herford,  R.  Travers,  Pharisaism,  its  aim  and  its  method, 
New  York,  1912. 

Hess,  Wilh.,  Jesus  von  Nazareth,  Tubinger,  1906. 

Hilgenfeld,  Adolf,  Die  Geburts  —  und  Kindheitsgeschichte 
Jesu,  Luc.  i.  5-ii.  52.    ZWTh  XLIV  (1901)  177-235. 

Hillmann,  Johannes,  Die  Kindheitsgeschichte  Jesu  nach  Lucas, 
JprTh  XVII  (1891)  192-261. 

Hitchcock,  Albert  W.,  The  self -consciousness  of  Jesus  in  its 
relation  to  the  Messianic  hope,  OT-NTSt  XIII  (1891) 
209  ff.  and  270  ff. 

,  The  psychology  of  Jesus,  A  study  of  the  development 

of  His  self -consciousness,  Boston,  1907. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  209 

Hoben,  Allen,  The  Virgin  Birth,  AmJTh  VI  (1902)  473  ff. 
Hofmann,  Chr.  K.  V.,  Die  heilige  Schrift  neuen  Testaments 

zusammenhangend  untersucht,  vol.  VIII.,  Nordlingen,  1878. 
Hofmann,  R.,  art.  Apocrypha  of  the  New  Testament,  in  Sch- 

HEnc  I.  105-107. 
Hofmeisterus,  Joannes,  Commentarium  in  evangelium  Lucae, 

Lovanii,  1562. 
Hollmann,  L.    The  Jewish  Religion  in  the  time  of  Jesus,  transl. 

by  E.  W.  Lummis,  London,  1909. 
Holmes,  Peter,  Jesus  Christ,  Kit.  EBL  I.  541  ff. 
Holtzmann,  H.  J.,  Hand-Commentar  zum  Neuen  Testament,  I., 

Freiburg  i.  B.,  1892. 
,  Lehrbuch  der  neutestamentlichen  Theologie,  Freiburg 

i.  B.,  1897. 

Das  messianische  Bewusstsein  Jesu,  Ein  Beitrag  zur 


Leben-Jesu-Forschung,  Tubingen,  1907. 
Holtzmann,  Oscar,  The  life  of  Jesus,  transl.  by  Bealby  and 
Cenney,  London,  1904. 

,  Das   Messiasbewusstsein   Jesu   und   seine   neuste   Be- 

streitung  (Vortrag),  Giessen,  1902. 
*Hugo,  Cardinalis  de  Sancto  Caro,  Postilla  super  IV.  Evan- 

gelia,  Basil,  1482. 
Humphrey,  W.  G.,  A  commentary  on  the  Revised  Version  of 

the  New  Testament,  London,  1882. 
*Hurter,  Hugo,  Theologiae  dogmaticae  compendium,  II.  Oeni- 

ponte,  1891. 
*Isaac  de  Stella,  Homilia  (duo)  in  Dominica   infra  octavam 

Epiphaniae,  M.PL  CXCIV  1715-1719. 
Jacobus,  Melancthon  W.,  Notes  on  the  Gospels,  critical  and 

explanatory,  Mark  and  Luke,  New  York,  1867. 
*Jacquier,   B.,   Histoire   des  livres   du    Nouveau    Testament. 

6  ed.,  vol.  2,  Paris,  1910. 
*Jansenius,    Cornelius,    Tetrateuchus    sive  commentarius   in 

sancta  Jesu  Christi  Evangelia,  torn.  2,  Avenione,  1835. 
*Janssens,  J.,  Tractatus  de  Deo  Homine,  I.  Friburgi,  1901. 
Jeremias,  Alfred,  Babylonisches  im  Neuen  Testament,  Leipzig, 

1905. 
*John  Scotus  Erigena,   De  divisione  naturae,  IV.  10,  M.PL 

CXXII.  777. 
Jones,  Maurice,  The  New  Testament  in  the  twentieth  century. 
A  survey  of  recent  christological  and  historical  criticism  of 
the  New  Testament,  London,  1914. 


210    THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Keil,  C.  F.,  Comment ar  uber  die  Evangelien  des  Markus  und 

Lukas,  Leipzig,  1879. 
Keim,  Theodor,  The  history  of  Jesus  of  Nazara,  transl.  by  G. 

Goldart,  London,  1876. 
Kennedy,  A.  R.  S.,  Education,  HDB  I.  346  ff. 
Kent,  Charles  F.,  The  Life  and  Teaching  of  Jesus  according 

to  the  earliest  records,  New  York,  1913. 

,  Biblical  geography  and  history,  New  York,  1911. 

Kilpatrick,  T.  B.,  Character  of  Christ,  HDG  I.  281  ff . 

,  Incarnation,  HDG  I.  796  ff. 

Klostermann,  Erich,  Lukas,  Tubingen,  1919. 
*Knabenbauer,  Joseph,  Commentarius  in  Quatuor  S.  Evangelia 

Domini  N.  Jesu  Christi.,  vol.  3,  in  Lucam,  Paris,  1896. 
Krenkel,   Max,   Josephus   und  Lucas,   der   schriftstellerische 

Einflus  des  jiidischen  Geschichtschreibers  auf  den  Christ- 
lichen  Nachgewissen,  Leipzig,  1894. 
Kuhl,  Ernst,  Das  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu,  BZSF  ser.  III.  nbr  II 

(1907). 
*Lagrange,  M.  J.,  Le  recit  de  l'enfance  de  Jesus  dans  S.  Luc,  Rb 

IV  (1895)  160  ff . 

,  Les  sources  du  Troisieme  Evangile,  Rb  IV  (1895)  5  ff. 

,  La  Paternite  de  Dieu  dans  l'ancien  Testament,  Rb 

(N.  S.)  V  (1908)  481  ff. 
,  La  Conception  surnaturelle  du  Christ  d'apres  Saint  Luc, 


Rb  (1914)  67-71  and  188-208. 
-,  Evangile  selon  Saint  Luc,  Paris,  1921. 


*Lamy,    Bernardo,    Commentarius    in   harmoniam   sive    con- 

cordiam  quatuor  Evangelistarum,  Venetilis,  1869. 
Lange,  J.  P.,  The  life  of  Christ,  transl.  by  Taylor  and  Rylud, 

vol.  I.,  Edinburgh,  1872. 
*a  Lapide,   Cornelius,   Commentaria  in  Sacram   Scripturam, 

editio  Xysto  Riario  Sfortiae,  torn.  8,  Niapoli,  1857.    Transl. 

into  English  by  Mossman  and  Ross,  1882. 
*Lebreton,  Jules,  Les  origines  du  dogme  de  la  Trinite,  Paris, 

1910. 
*Le  Camus,  La  Vie  de  N.  S.  Jesus  Christ,  vol.  I.,  Paris,  1883. 
*Lepicier,  Alexio  M.,  Tractatus  de  Incarnatione  Verbi,  Parisiis, 

1905. 
*Lepin,  Marius,  Christ  and  the  Gospel,  or  Jesus  the  Messiah  and 

Son  of  God,  authorized  English  version,  Philadelphia,  1910. 
*Lesetre,  H.,  La  Vierge  Mere,  RCLfr  (1907)  113-130. 
,  La  methode  historique  de  S.  Luc,  Rb  I  (1892)  171  ff. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  211 

*Lesetre,  H.,  Jesus  Christ,  VDB  III.  1444. 

,  Le  Temple  de  Jerusalem,  Paris,  1912. 

Lester,  C.  S.,  The  historical  Jesus,  a  study  of  the  synoptic 

Gospels,  New  York,  1912. 
Lightfoot,  John,  Horae  Hebraicae  et  Talmudicae  or  Hebrew 

and  Talmudical  exercitations  upon  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke, 

edit,  by  R.  Gaundel,  Oxford,  1859. 
Lightfoot,  J.  B.,  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  ed.  by  Harmer,  Lon- 
don, 1912. 
Lobstein,  Paul,  The  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ,  an  historical  essay 

transl.  by  V.  Leutiett,  London,  1903. 
Loisy,  Alfred,  Les  fivangiles  Synoptiques,   vol.   I.   278-384. 

Ceffonds,  1907. 
,  Les  ecrits  de  Saint  Luc,  a  propos  d'  un  livre  recent,  RHLr, 

N.  S.  IV  (1913)  352-368. 
Low,  Leopold,  Die  Lebensalter  in  der  jiidischen  Literatur  von 

psychologischen  rechts  —  sitten  —  u.  religions  —  geschicht- 

lichen  Standpunkte  betrachtet,  Szegedin,  1875. 
*Lucas,  Franciscus  Brugensis,  Comment arius  in  Sanctum  Jesu 

Christi  Evangelium,  torn.  2,  Antuerpiae,  1619;   found  also 

in  Migne,  Cursus  Completus,  S.  S. 
*Ludolphus  Saxonius,  Vita  Christi  ex  Evangeliis  et  scriptoribus 

orthodoxis,  Paris,  1534. 
Luther,  Martin,  Werke,  vol.  I.-III.   and  X.-XII.    Edit.  E. 

Ludwig  Enders,  Frankfurt  am  Main,  1862. 
*Lyra,  Nicolas  de,  Biblia  latina  compostillis,  vol.  4.    Wornberg, 

Koberger,  1487. 
*Maas,  A.  J.,  The  life  of  Jesus  Christ  according  to  Gospel  history, 

St.  Louis,  1891. 

,  Jesus  Christ,  Cath.  Enc.  VIII.  374  ff . 

,  A  Day  in  the  Temple,  St.  Louis,  1908. 

MacDermott,  G.  M.,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  Lon- 
don, 1916. 
*MacEvilly,  Rev.  Dr.,  An  exposition  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke, 

3  ed.,  New  York,  1888. 
Machen,  J.   Gresnan,  The  New  Testament  account  of  the 

birth   of   Jesus,  PrthR  III   (1905)   64  ff.  and  IV   (1906) 

38  ff. 
,  The  origin  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  Luke,  PrthR  X 

(1912)  212-277. 
Mackintosh,  H.  R.,  The  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Jesus,  New 

York,  1912. 


212     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Mackintosh,  Robert,  The  dawn  of  the  Messianic  consciousness 

ExpT  XVI  (1905)  157-158  and  211-215. 
Maclaren,  Alexander,  The  Gospel  of  St.  Luke,  New  York,  1894. 
McLaughlin,  G.  A.,  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  according  to  St. 

Luke,  Chicago,  1912. 
Maclean,  Arthur  J.,  God,  HDB,  sing.  vol.  299-303. 
*MacRory,  J.,  The  authorship  of  the  Third  Gospel  and  the  Acts, 

IthQ  II  (1907)  April. 
,  Professor  Harnack  and  St.  Luke's  historical  authority, 

IthQ  II  (1907)  223  ff. 
Mahaffy,  John  P.,  The  silver  age  of  the  Greek  world,  Chicago, 

1906. 
Malan,  C,  L'avenement  dans  Jesus  enfant  de  la  conscience 

religieuse,  RThQr  V  (1896)  269-283. 
*Maldonatus,  Joannis,  Commentarius  in  Quatuor  Evangelistas, 

ed.  J.  M.  Raich,  torn.  2,  Moguntiae,  1874. 
*Mangenot,  E.,  L'Evangile  de  Saint  Luc,  two  articles  in  RClfr, 

Sept.  and  Nov.,  1910. 
,  Les  Evangiles  Synoptiques,  Conferences  apologetiques, 

Paris,  1911. 
Martin,  Alfred  W.,  The  life  of  Jesus  in  the  light  of  the  higher 

criticism,  New  York,  1913. 
Mason,  Arthur  James,  The  conditions  of  our  Lord's  life  on 

earth,  New  York,  1896. 
Matthews,  Shailer,  The  Messianic  hope  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, Chicago,  1905. 
— ,  A  history  of  New  Testament  times  in  Palestine,  175  b.c- 

70  a.d.,  New  York,  1914. 
Melanchthonis,  Philipp,  Opera  quae  supersunt  omnia,  Bret- 

schneider,  ed.  by  Bindseil,  vol.  24,  Brunsvigae,  1856. 
*Metaphrastes,  Simeon,  Oratio  de  Sancta  Maria,  13  and  14, 

M.PG  CXV.  447-8. 
Meyer,  H.  W.  W.,  Critical  and  exegetical  commentary  on  the 

New  Testament,  transl.  rev.   and  ed.   by  Dickenson  and 

Stewart,  Edinburgh,  1880. 
Michaelis,  Johann  David,  Uebersetzung  des  Neuen  Testa- 
ments, vol.  I.,  Gottingen,  1790. 
Michaelis,  Johanns  Georg,  Exercitatio  Philologico-theologica 

de  Christo  ONTI   EN    TOIS    TOY   IIATPOS  ad  Luc. 

ii.  49,  in  Miscellanea  Groningona,  in  miscellaneorum  Duis- 

burgensium  continuationem  publicata,  I.  fasc.  II.  262-282 

(ed.  D.  Gerdes)  torn.  I,  Amstelodami  et  Duisburgi,  1736. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  213 

Michel,  Charles,  fivangiles  Apocryphes,  Paris,  1911. 
Miller,  Lucius  Hopkins,  Our  knowledge  of  Christ,  an  historical 

approach,  New  York,  1914. 
,  The  Life  of  Jesus  in  the  light  of  modern  criticism,  BW 

XLIII  (1914)  75-85. 
Milner,  G.  E.  J.,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  ed.  with 

introduction  and  notes,  London,  1916. 
Moffatt,  James,  An  introduction  to  the  literature  of  the  New 

Testament,  New  York,  1911. 
Monnier,  Henri,  La  Mission  historique  de  Jesus,  2  ed.,  Paris, 

1914. 
Montefiore,C.  G.,The  synoptic  Gospels,  ed.  with  introduction 

and  a  commentary,  with  a  series  of  additional  notes  by  I. 

Abrahams,  vol.  2,  London,  1909. 
Moore,  Clifford  H.,  The  Religious  thought  of  the  Greeks  from 

Homer  to  the  triumph  of  Christianity,  Cambridge,  Mass., 

1916. 
Morus,  Sam.  Fried,  Nathan,  Praelectiones  in  Lucae  Evangelium, 

ed.  C.  A.  Donat,  Lipsiae,  1795. 
Moulton,  James  Hope,  A  Grammar  of  New  Testament  Greek,  I. 

Edinburgh,  1908. 
Moulton  and  Milligan,  Texical  notes  from  the  Papyri,  Exp. 

vol.  VII.,  ser.  7  (1909)  470. 
Murray,  Potter,  The  Legendary  Story  of  Christ's  Childhood, 

NW  VIII  (1889)  648. 
Neander,  Augustine,  The  Life  of  Jesus  Christ,  4  ed.,  transl. 

and  ed.  by  J.  Clintock  and  C.  E.  Blumanthal,  New  York, 

1850. 
Nebe,  A.,  Die  Kindheitsgeschichte  unseres  Herrn  Jesu  Christi 

nach  Matthaus  und  Lukas  ausgelegt,  Stuttgart,  1893. 
Nevin,  Alfred,  Popular  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  according 

to  Luke,  Philadelphia,  1868. 
Neumann,  Arno,  Jesus,  transl.  by  M.  A.  Canney,  London,  1906. 
Nicoll,  W.  R.,  The  Incarnate  Saviour,  a  Life  of  Christ,  New 

York,  1882. 
Nolloth,  Charles  F.,  The  Person  of  our  Lord  and  recent 

thought,  London,  1908. 
,  The  rise  of  the  Christian  Religion,  a  study  in  origins, 

London,  1917. 
Nosgen,  E.,  Geschichte  Jesu  Christi,  Miinchen,  1891. 
Oesterley,  William,  Judaism  in  the  days  of  Christ,  in  "The 

Parting  of  the  Roads,"  ed.  by  F.  Jackson,  London,  1912. 


214     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Olshausen,  Hermann,  Biblical  commentary  on  the  Gospels, 

adapted  especially  for  preachers  and  students,  transl.  by  S. 

Lowe,  Edinburgh,  1847. 
Oosterzee,  J.  J.  van,  The  Gospel  according  to  Luke,  4  ed., 

transl.  by  Schaff  and  Starbuck,  New  York,  1867  (in  Lange's 

Comment.). 
Orb,  James,  The  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ,  London,  1908. 
Owen,  John  J.,  A  commentary,  critical,  expository  and  practical 

on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke,  New  York,  1859. 
Paterson,  W.  P.,  Jesus  Christ,  HDB  (sing.  vol.). 
*Patritius,  Franciscus  Xaverius,  De  Evangeliis,  lib.  3,  Fri- 

bourgi-Brisgoviae,  1853. 
Paulus,  H.  E.  G.,  Philologisch-kritischer  Commentar  Uber  die 

drei  ersten  Evangelien,  vol.  I.,  Liibeck,  1800-1802. 
,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  als  Grundlage  einer  reinen  Geschichte 

des  Urchristentums,  Heidelberg,  1828. 
-,  Exegetisches  Handbuch  Uber  die  drei  ersten  Evangelien, 


Heidelberg,  1842. 
Paynter,  A.  W.,  The  Holy  Life,  a  contribution  to  the  historical 

development  of,  and  a  critical  exposition,  Chicago,  1886. 
Peabody,  Francis,  The  Character  of  Jesus  Christ,  HJ  Jul. 

(1903)  641  ff. 
*Pesch,  Christian,  Praelectiones   dogmaticae,  IV.,   De  Verbo 

Incarnato,  de  B.  V.  Maria,  de  cultu  sanctorum,  3  ed.  Fri- 

burgi,  1909. 
Pfleiderer,  Otto,  The  early  Christian  conception  of  Christ,  its 

significance  and  value  in  the  history  of  religion,  New  York, 

1905. 
,  Christian   Origins,   transl.    by    Huebach,    New   York, 

1906. 

Primitive  Christianity,  its  writings  and  teachings  in 


their  historical  connections,  transl.   by  W.   Montgomery, 

New  York,  1909. 
Phelan,  William,  The  remains  of  William  Phelan,  D.D.,  with  a 

biographical  memoir  by  John  Bishop  of  Limerick,  vol.  I., 

London,  1832. 
Philo  Judaeus,  Works,  transl.  by  C.  D.  Yonge,  London,  1855. 
*Photius,    Constantinopolitani    Patriarcha,    Ad.    Ampilochium, 

quest,  157,  M.PG  CI.  832;  Contra  Manichaeos,  IV.  16  M.PG 

CII  B.  233. 
*Picard,  Louis,  La  transcendance  de  Jesus  Christ,  torn.  I.,  La 

vie  et  la  psychologie  de  Jesus  Christ,  Paris,  1905, 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  215 

*Piscator,  John,  Commentarii  in  omnes  libros  Novi  Testamenti, 

ante  hac  separatim  editi  nunc  vero  in  unum  volumen  col- 

lecti,  3  ed.  Herbornae  Nassoviorum,  1638. 
Plummer,  Alfred,  A  critical  and  exegetical  commentary  on  the 

Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  7  ed.,  New  York,  1906. 
,  The  advance  of  Christ  in  2o#(a.    In  Exp.  ser.  4,  vol. 

IV.  1-14. 
Plumptre,  E.  H.,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke  (in  Ellicott's 

New  Test.  Comment.  L),  London,  1884. 
*Pohle,  Jospeh,  Christology,  a  dogmatic  treatise  on  the  Incarna- 
tion, transl.  by  A.  Preuss,  2  ed.,  St.  Louis,  1916. 
*Power,  Matthew,   Who  were  they  who   "understood  not"? 

IthQ  VII  (1912)  July  and  Oct. 
de  Pressense,  Edmond,  Jesus  Christ,  His  times,  life  and  work, 

2  ed.,  transl.  by  A.  Harwood,  New  York,  1868. 
,  The  early  years  of  Christianity,  transl.  by  A.  Harwood, 

New  York,  1872. 
Preuschen,  Erwin,  Vollstandiges  griechisch-deutsches  Hand- 

worterbuch  zu  den  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments  und  der 

ubrigen  urchristlichen  Literatur,  Giessen,  1910. 
Pricaeus,  Joannes,  Commentarii  in  varios  novi  Testamenti 

Libros,  Londini,  1681,  also  in  Biblia  Critica  VI.  304. 
Purves,  George  T.,  The  story  of  the  Birth,  BW  VIII  (1896) 

423  ff. 
Ramsay,  W.  M.,  Was  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem?  a  study  in  the 

credibility  of  St.  Luke,  New  York,  1898. 

,  The  education  of  Christ,  2  ed.,  New  York,  1902. 

,  Luke  the  Physician.    And  other  studies  in  the  history 

of  religion,  London,  1908. 
-,  The  bearing  of  recent  discovery  on  the  trustworthiness 


of  the  New  Testament,  2  ed.,  London,  1915. 
Reinhard,  F.  V.,  Plan  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity,  transl.  by 

Oliver  Taylor,  New  York,  1831. 
Renan,  Ernest,  The  Life  of  Jesus,  transl.  by  Brentano,  New 

York,  1863. 
,  Les  Evangiles  et  la  seconde  generation  chretienne,  3  ed., 

Paris,  1877. 
Resch,  A.,  Das  Kindheits  Evangeliumnach  Lucas  und  Matthaeus 

T.  U.  Leipzig,  1897. 
Reubelt,  J.  A.,  The  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ, 

based  on  the   German  of  W.   F.   Gess,   2  ed.,  Andover, 

1871. 


216     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Reuss,  Edouard,  Histoire  Bvangelique,  synopse  des  trois  pre- 
mieres evangiles,  Paris,  1876. 
Reville,  Albert,  Jesus  de  Nazareth,  etudes  critiques  sur  les 

antecedents  de  l'histoire  evangelique  et  la  vie  de  Jesus,  vol. 

I.,  Paris,  1897. 

,  The  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus,  NW  I  (1892)  695-723. 

Rhees,  Rush,  The  Life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  study,  New 

York,  1900. 
Rice,  Edwin,  Popular  commentary  on  the  Gospel  according  to 

St.  Luke,  4  ed.,  Philadelphia,  1894, 
Riddle,  M.  B.,  The  Gospel  according  to  Luke,   New  York, 

1822. 
Robertson,  A.  T.,  The  teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  God  the 

Father,  New  York,  1904. 

,  Keywords  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  Philadelphia,  1906. 

,  Epochs  in  the  life  of  Christ.     A  study  of  development  and 

struggle  in  the  Messiah's  work,  New  York,  1908. 
,  A  grammar  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  in  the  light 

of  historical  research,  London,  1914. 
,  The    romance    of  the  census    in  Luke's  Gospel.  Bib. 

Rev.  V  (1920)  491. 
-,  Luke  the  historian  in  the  light  of  research,  New  York, 


1920. 
Robinson,  Forbes,  The  self-limitation  of  the  Word  of  God  as 

manifested  in  the  Incarnation,  London,  1914. 
*Ryan,  Cornelius,  The  Gospels  of  the  Sundays  and  Feasts,  2  ed., 

vol.  2,  New  York,  1906. 
Ryle,  J.  C,  Expository  thoughts  on  the  Gospels  for  family  and 

private  use,  St.  Luke,  vol.  1,  New  York,  1867. 
Sadler,  M.  F.,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke  with  notes 

critical  and  practical,  London,  1888. 
*Salmeron,  Alphonsus,  Commentarii  in  Evangelicam  historiam 

et  in  Acta  Apostolorum,  Coloniae  Agrippinae,  1612. 
Sanday,  William,  The  Virgin  Birth,  ExpT  XIV  (1902-3)  296- 

303. 

,  God  (in  New  Test.),  HDB  II.  205-215. 

,  Son  of  God,  HDB  IV.  570-579. 

,  The  Life  of  Christ  in  recent  research,  Oxford,  1907. 

,  Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Christ,  2  ed.,  New  York,  1908. 

*Schaefer,  Aloys.,  The  Mother  of  Jesus  in  Holy  Scripture, 

biblical  theological  addresses,  2  ed.,  transl.  by  F.  Brossart, 

New  York,  1913. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  217 

Schaff,  Philip,  A  popular  commentary  of  the  New  Testament, 

by  English  and  American  scholars  of  various  evangelical 

denominations,  Edinburgh,  1879. 
*Schanz,  Paul,  Commentar  iiber  der  Evangelium  des  heiligen 

Lucas,  Tubingen,  1883. 
*Schegg,  Peter,  Evangelium  nach  Lukas,  I.  Miinchen,  1861. 
Schenkel,  Daniel,  Das  Charakterbild  Jesu,  Weesbaden,  1879, 

transl.  by  W.  H.  Furness,  Boston,  1866. 
Schlatter,  D.  A.,  Die  Theologie  des  neuen  Testaments,  vol.  I., 

Das  Wort  Jesu,  Stuttgart,  1909. 
Schleusner,  Joh.  Fried.,  Novum  Lexicon  Graeco-Latinum  in 

N.  T.  cum  variis  observationibus  philologicis,  London,  1829. 
Schleiermacher,  Frederick,  Ueber  die  Schriften  des  Lukas, 

Berlin,  1817. 
,  A  critical  essay  on  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke,  transl.  from 

German,  London,  1825. 
-,  Das  Leben  Jesu  (ed.  K.  A.  Rutenik),  Berlin,  1864. 


Schmidt,  Hermann,  Bildung  und  Gehalt  des  messianischen  Be- 

wusstseins  Jesu,  StKr  LXI1  (1889)  423-507. 
Schmidt,  Nathaniel,  The  Prophet  of  Nazareth,  New  York,  1905. 
Schmidt,  P.  Wilh.,  Die  Geschichte  Jesu  I.  erzahlt  II.  erlautert, 

Tubingen  and  Leipzig,  1900-1904. 
Schmiedel,  P.  W.,  Arts.,  Mary  and  Luke  in  E.  B. 
,  Jesus  in  modern  criticism, — A  lecture  transl.  by  M.  A. 

Canney,  London,  1907. 
Schoettgenius,  Christianus,  Horae  Hebraicae  et  Talmudicae 

in  theologiam  Judaeorum  dogmaticam  antiquam  et  ortho- 

doxam,  torn.  2,  Dresdae,  1742. 
Scholia  Vetera  in  Lucam,  M.PG  CVI.  1189. 
*Schulte,  P.  Elzear,  Die  Entwickelung  der  Lehre  vom  men- 

schlichen  Wissen  Christi  bis  zum  Beginn  der  Scholastik, 

Paderborn,  1914. 
*Schumacher,  Heinrich,  Die  Selbstoffenbarung  Jesu  bei  Mat. 

11,  27  (Luc.  10,  22),  ein  kritisch-exegetische  Untersuchung, 

Freiburg  i.  B.,  1912. 
,  Christus  in  seiner  Praexistenz  und  Kenose  nach  Phil.  2, 

5-8  Rom.,  1914. 
Schurer,  Emil,  Geschichte  des  judischen  Volkes  im  Zeitalter 

Jesu  Christi,  4  ed.,  Leipzig,  1907;    English  transl.  by  S. 

Taylor  and  P.  Christie,  New  York,  1891. 
,  Das  messianische  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu  Christi,  Gbttin- 

gen,  1903. 


218     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

*Schwaiger,  J.,  Leben  Jesu,  Innsbruch,  1860. 
Schweitzer,  Albert,  The  quest  of  the  historical  Jesus,  a  criti- 
cal study  of  its  progress  from  Reimarus  to  Wrede,  transl.  by 

Montgomery,  London,  1910. 
Scott,  E.  F.,  Father's  house,  HDG  I.  582. 

*Seitz,  A.,  Das  Evangelium  vom  Gottessohn,  Freiburg  i.  Br.  1908. 
*Shanahan,  Edmund  T.,  Was  the  Son  of  Man  brusque  to  His 

mother?    Catholic  World  CIV  (1916)  342  ff. 
Sheldon,  Henry  C,  New  Testament  theology,  New  York,  1911. 
Sickenberger,  Joa.,  Titus  von  Bostra,  Studien  zu  dessen  Lukas- 

homilien,  Leipzig,  1901. 
Smith,  David,  Education,  HDG  I.  507  ff. 
,  The  days  of  His  Flesh,  the  earthly  life  of  our  Lord  and 

Saviour  J.  C,  New  York,  1905. 
Sodon,  Hermann  von.,  Die  wichtigsten  Fragen  im  Leben  Jesu 

(Vortrag),  Berlin,  1904. 
Soltau,  Wilhelm,  The  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ,  transl.  by  M.  A. 

Canney,  London,  1903. 
Spaeth,  H.,  Die  Entwickelung  Jesu  (Vortrag),  Berlin,  1872. 
Spitta,    Friedrich,    Die    chronologischen    Notizen    und    die 

Hymnen  in  Lc.  i.  u.  2,  ZntlW  VII  (1906)  281-317. 
Stalker,  James,  The  Life  of  Jesus  Christ,  New  York,  1909. 

,  Son  of  God,  HDG  II.  654  ff. 

,  The   Christology   of   Jesus,    being   His   teaching   con- 
cerning Himself  according  to  the  Synop.  Gosp.,  London, 

1899. 
Stapfer,  Edmond,  Jesus  Christ  avant  son  Ministere,  Paris,  1896, 

transl.  by  S.  G.  Houghton,  New  York,  1900. 
Steinbeck,  Joh.,  Das  gottliche   Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu   nach 

dem  Zeugnis  der  Synoptiker,  eine  Untersuchung  zur  Christo- 

logie,  Leipzig,  1908. 
*Steinmetzer,  Franz,  Die  Geschichte  der  Geburt  und  Kindheit 

Christi    und    ihr    Verhaltnis    zur    babylonischen    Mythe, 

Minister  i.  E.,  1910. 
Steinmeyer,  F.  L.,  Die  Geschichte  der  Geburt  des  Herrn  und 

seiner  ersten  Schritte  im  Leben,  in  Bezug  auf  die  neueste 

Kritik,  Berlin,  1873. 
*Stella,  Didachus,  De  Observantia  in  Sanctum  Jesu  Christi 

Evangelium  secundum  Lucam  doctissima  pariter  et  purissima 

commentaria,  L,  Lugduni,  1592. 
Stephens,  George  Barker,  The  theology  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, New  York,  1903. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  219 

Stewart,  A.  Morris,  The  temptation  of  Jesus,  a  study  of  our 

Lord's  trial  in  the  wilderness,  2  ed.,  New  York,  1903. 
Stier,  Rudolf,  The  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  2  ed.,  transl.  by 

W.  Pope,  I.,  Edinburgh,  1894. 
Stokes,  Anson  Phelps,  What  Jesus  Christ  thought  of  Himself, 
another  outline  study  and  interpretation  of  His  self -revela- 
tion in  the  Gospels,  New  York,  1916. 
Strauss,  David  Friedrich,  The  Life  of  Jesus,  critically  ex- 
amined, 4  ed.,  transl.  by  M.  Evans,  New  York,  1855. 
Streatfeild,  G.  S.,  The  Self -interpretation  of  Jesus   Christ,  a 
study  of  the  messianic  consciousness    as  reflected  in   the 
Synoptics,  New  York,  1906. 
*Suarez,  R.  D.  Franciscus,  De  myst.  disp.  iv.  quaest.  27.,  art. 

6,  Opera  omnia,  torn.  19,  Paris,  1860. 
Sweet,  Louis  M.,  The  birth  and  infancy  of  Jesus  Christ  accord- 
ing to  the  Gospel  narrative,  Philadelphia,  1907. 
*Sylveira,  Joannis,  Commentariorum  in  textum  evangelicum, 

torn.  I,  Lugduni,  1655. 
Tasker,  John  G.,  Apocryphal  Gospels,  HDB  Ex.  vol.  431  ff. 
*Terrien,  T.  B.,  La  Mere  de  Dieu  et  la  Mere  des  hommes  d'apres 

les  peres  et  la  theologie,  Paris,  1900-2. 
Theophylactus,  Bulgariae  Archiep.,  Ennaratio  in  Evangelium 

Lucae,  M.PG  CXXIII.  733. 
Thilo,  Codex  apocryphus  Novi  Testamenti,  Leipzig,  1832. 
Thiriet,  Th.  M.,  L'evangile  medite  avec  les  peres,  I.,  Paris,  1905. 
Tholuck,  A.,  Die  Glaubwlirdigkeit  der  evangelischen  Geschichte, 
zugleich  eine  Kritik  des  Lebens  Jesu  von  Strauss  fiir  theolo- 
gische  und  nicht  theologische  Leser  dargestellt,  Hamburg, 
1858. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  St.,  Summa  Theologica,  literally  transl.  by  the 
Fathers  of  the  English  Dominican  Province,  New  York,  1913. 
Thomson,  William,  Jesus  Christ,  SDB  I.  1039  ff. 
*Tirinus,  Jacobus,  In  universam  S.  Scripturam  commentarius, 

torn.  4,  Taurini,  1883. 
*Toletus,    Franciscus,    Commentarii    in    sacrosanctum    Jesu 

Christi  D.  N.  evangelium  secundum  Lucam,  Parisiis,  1600. 
Torrey,  Charles  C,  The  transl.  made  from  the  original  Ara- 
maic Gospels  (in  Studies  in  the  hist,  of  relig.  pres.  to  C.  H. 
Toy),  New  York,  1912. 
Toy,  C.  H.,  Judaism  and  Christianity,  a  sketch  of  the  progress 
of  thought  from  Old  Testament  to  New  Testament,  Boston, 
1891. 


220     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Usener,  H.,  Nativity,  EB  III.  3340-3352. 

Vallings,  J.  F.,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Divine  Man,  His  life  and 

times,  New  York,  1889. 
*Veuillot,  Louis,  La  vie  de  notre  Seigneur  Jesus-Christ,  14  ed., 

Paris,  1900. 
Vincent,  Marvin  R.,  Word  studies  in  the  New  Testament,  vol. 

L,  New  York,  1887. 
Vogel,  Theodor,  Zur  Charakteristik  des  Lukas  nach  Sprach 

und  Stil,  Leipzig,  1899. 
*Vogles,  H.  F.,  Die  "Eltern"  Jesu,  BZ  XI  (1913)  33  ff. 
Volter,  Daniel,  Die  evangelischen  Erzahlungen  von  der  Geburt 

und  Kindheit  Jesu  kritisch  untersucht,  Strassburg  1911. 
,  Jesus  der  Menschensohn  oder    das   Berufsbewusstsein 

Jesu,  Strassburg,  1914. 
*Vonier,  Dom  Anscar,  The  Personality  of  Christ,  London,  1915. 
Wallis,  Robert  E.,  "About  My  Father's  Business,"  a  plea  for 

a  neglected  transl.,  Luke  ii.  49,  Exp.  ser.  2,  vol.  VIII.  17-23. 
Walpole,  A.  S.,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke  in  the  revised 

version  with  introduction  and  notes,  London,  1910. 
*Ward,  Mgr.,  The  Holy  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  with 

introduction  and  notes,  London,  1905. 
Warfield,  Benjamin  B.,  Amazement,  HDG  I.  47  ff. 

,  Astonishment,  HDG  I.  131. 

Weinel,  Heinrich,  and  A.  E.  Widgery,  Jesus  in  the  nineteenth 

century  and  after,  Edinburgh,  1914. 
Weiss,  Bernard,  The  life  of  Christ,  transl.  by  J.  W.  Hope,  vol. 

I.,  Edinburgh,  1883. 
,  Biblical  theology  of  the  New  Testament,  3  ed.,  transl. 

by  E.  Dugnid,  vol.  2,  Edinburgh,  1893. 

A  commentary  on  the  New  Testament,   transl.    by 


Schodde  and  Wilson,  New  York,  1906. 
Weiss,  Johannes,  Die  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments,  I.  die 

drei  alteren  Evangelien,  die  Apostolgeschichte,  Gottingen, 

1907. 
Wellhausen,  Julius,  Das  Evangelium  Lucae,  Berlin,  1904. 

,  Einleitung  in  die  drei  ersten  Evangelien,  Berlin,  1905. 

Wendt,  Hans  Heinrich,  The  teaching  of  Jesus,  transl.  by  J. 

Wilson,  vol.  I.,  Edinburgh,  1892. 
Wernle,  Paul,  The  beginnings  of  Christianity,  transl.  by  G.  A. 

Beinemann  and  edit,  by  W.  D.  Morrison,  London,  1903. 
,  The  sources  of  our  knowledge  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  transl. 

by  E.  Lummis,  London,  1907. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  221 

Wette,  W.  M.  L.  de,  Kurze  Erklarung  der  Evangelien  des  Lukas 

und  Markus,  Leipzig,  1846. 
Wettstenius,  Joannis  J.,  Novum  Testamentum  Graecum,  torn. 

I.,  Amstelaedami,  1751. 
Whitefoord,  B.,  Christ  and  popularity,  a  study  of  St.  Luke  ii. 

52.    Exp.  ser.  5,  vol.  II.,  pp.  69-76. 
Wilkinson,  William  C,  Concerning  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of 

Man,  Philadelphia,  1918. 
Wolfius,  Jo.  Chbistophorus,  Curae  philogicae  et  criticae  in 

quatuor  S.  Evangelia  et  Acta  Apostolorum,  3  ed.,  Hamburgi, 

1739. 
Wright,  Arthur,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke  in  Greek, 

London,  1900. 
,  A  Synopsis  of  the  Gospels  in  Greek,  with  various  readings 

and  critical  notes,  3  ed.,  London,  1906. 
*Zacharias,  Chrysopolitanus,  In  unum  ex  quatuor  seu  de  con- 
cord, Evang.,  M.PL  CLXXXVI.  88. 
Zahn,  Theodor,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  3  ed., 

transl.  under  direction  of  M.  E.  Jacobus,  Edinburgh,  1909. 

,  Das  Evangelium  des  Lucas,  vol.  I.,  Leipzig,  1913. 

Zimmermann,  Hellmuth,  Evangelium  des  Lukas  Kap.  1  und  2, 

ein  Versuch  der  Vermittlung  zwischen  Hilgenfeld  und  Har- 

nack,  StKr  LXXVI  (1903)  247-290. 
Zockler,  Otto,  Jesus  Christ,  SchHEnc  II.  1170. 


II 

SELECTED  LIST  ON  CHRIST'S  CONSCIOUSNESS 
IN  BOYHOOD 

St.  Epiphanius,  Adv.  haer.  lib.  I.  torn.  2,  haer.  30,  M.PG  XLI. 

456-457. 
St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Explanation  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel  ad 

loc,  M.PG  LXXII.  509;  also  De  recta  fide,  M.PG  LXXVI. 

1320. 
St.  Augustine,  Serm.  LI.  De  concord  Evang.,  Matt,  et  Luc.  in 

generationibus  Dom.  C.  II.,  M.PL  XXXVIII.  342-343. 
,    Also  de  nuptiis  et  concup.  Corp.  Script.  Lat.   (edit. 

Vrba  and  Zycha)  XLII.  225. 
Simeon  Metaphrastes,   Vita  sanctorum,  oratio  de  S.  Maria, 

M.PG  CXV.  548. 


222     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Maldonatus,  Ioa,  Comment,  ad  loc. 

Sylveira,  Jo.,  Comment,  in  text,  evang.  I.  352-354. 

Stier,  Rudolf,  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  23  ff . 

Goulburn,  E.  M.,  The  Gospel  of  the  Childhood,  162-171. 

Steinmeyer,  F.,  Geschichte  der  Geburt  des  Herrn,  167  ff. 

Schmidt,  H.,  Bildung  und  Gehalt  des  messianischen  Bewusst- 

seins  Jesu,  StKr  LXII  (1889)  429-430. 
Nebe,  A.,  Die  Kindheitsgeschichte  J.  C,  417. 
Malan,  C,  L'avenement  dans  Jesus  enfant  de  la  conscience 

religieuse,  RThQr  V.  (1896)  269-283. 
Furrer,  K.,  Das  Leben  J.  C,  51-58. 
Garvie,  A.,  Studies  in  the  inner  Life  of  Jesus,  110-114. 
Bartmann,  N.  B.,  Christus  ein  Gegner  des  Marienkultus?,  43-61. 
Seitz,  A.,  Das  Evangelium  vom  Gottessohn,  194-209. 
Fillion,  CL,  Le  developpement  intellectuel  et  moral  de  Jesus, 

RCIfr  (April  1,  1914),  15  ff. 
Felder,  H.,  Jesus  Christus,  I.  278-280,  328-331. 


Ill 

TREATISES  ON  THE  INFANCY  AND  BOYHOOD 
OF  CHRIST 

Aelredus,  Abb.  Revallis,  Tractatus  de  Jesu  Puero  duodenni, 
M.PL  CLXXXIV.  830-870. 

Chiefly  of  a  moral  and  religious  value. 
Bede,    Venerabilis,    Homil.    XII.    in    Dominica   prima   post 
Epiphaniam,  M.PL  XCIV.  65  ff. 

A  sermon  dwelling  mostly  on  the  moral  aspect. 

Beet,  Joseph  A.,  The   "Father's  Business,"  Homiletic  Rev. 

XXXIV.  (1897)  242-243. 
Brief  and  in  the  homiletic  line. 

Berg,  Emil  P.,  Our  Lord's  preparation  for  the  Messiahship,  a 

study  on  the  early  life  of  Jesus  Christ,  London,  1909. 
Rather  odd,  certainly  not  composed  on  the  Gospel  records. 

Bernard,  Thomas  D.,  The  Songs  of  the  Holy  Nativity,  London, 

1895. 
Boardman,  George  D.,  The  Divine  Man  from  the  Nativity  to 

the  Temptation,  New  York,  1887. 
From  the  negative  standpoint. 

Bolo,  Henri,  Histoire  de  1'  Enfant  Jesus,  2  ed.,  Paris,  1896. 
Simple  explanatory  exposition  of  the  Gospel  account.jj 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  223 

Bough,  J.,  The  early  life  of  Our  Lord,  London,  1897. 

Box,  G.  H.,  The  Gospel  narratives  of  the  Nativity  and  the 

alleged  influence  of  heathen  ideas,  ZntlW  VI  (1905)  80-101. 

Afterwards   enlarged   into   his   work:     The   Virgin   Birth, 

London,  1916. 

A  good  critical  presentment  of  the  arguments  for  the  historical  trust- 
worthiness. 

Brooke,  S.  A.,  The  early  life  of  Jesus,  London,  1870. 

Brough,  J.,  The  early  life  of  Our  Lord,  London,  1897. 

A  good  treatment  of  the  historical  background. 

Brown,  David,  The  life  of  Jesus  prior  to  his  public  ministry. 
(Exp.  T  VI  (1894-5)  415  ff.) 

An  answer  to  points  raised  by  Godet. 

Budham,  F.  P.,  The  integrity  of  Lk.  i.  5-ii,  Exp.  T  VIII. 
(1896-7)  116  ff. 

A  critical  study  of  the  question. 

Calthrop,  Gordon,  On  Lk.  ii.  49  in  Quiver,  Dec.  1889. 
Carter,  T.  T.,  Our  Lord's  early  life,  London,  1887. 

,  Meditations  on  the  hidden  life  of  Our  Lord. 

Chauvin,  C,  L'Enfance  du  Christ,  Paris,  1901. 

Clemens,  John  S.,  Art.  The  Childhood  of  Jesus,  HDG  I.  298  ff. 

Good  from  the  historical  point  of  view. 
Conrady,  L.,  Die  Quelle  der  kanonischen  Kindheitsgeschichte 
Jesu,    ein    wissenschaftlicher    Versuch,    Gottingen,    1900. 
Phantastic  and  with  results  rejected  by  all. 

Durand,  A.,  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ  according  to  the  can. 
Gospels,  transl.  by  J.  Bruneau,  Philadelphia,  1910. 

Good  answer  to  the  criticisms  of  the  negative  school. 

Farmer,  George,  Art.  Boyhood,  Boyhood  of  Jesus,  HDG  I. 
221-230. 

Good  historical  background  and  literal  meaning  of  the  Gospel  text. 
Fillion,  Cl.,  Le  developpement  intellectuel  et  moral  de  Jesus. 
*RCIfr  April  1  and  15,  1914. 

A  good  exposition  of  this  question. 

Gelpke,  Ernst  F.  Die  Jugendgeschichte  des  Herrn,  ein  Beitrag 
zur  hoheren  Kritik  und  Exegese  des  neuen  Testaments. 
Bern,  1841. 

Good  conservative  exposition  of  the  Gospel  narratives. 

George,  E.  A.,  The  Gospels  of  the  Infancy,  OT-NTSt  X  (1890) 
281  ff. 

Weighing  the  arguments  for  and  against  the  historicity. 

Godefridus,  Ven  Abb.  Admontensis,  Homilia  14-15  in  Domin- 
ica infra  Oct.  Epiphaniae,  M.PL  CLXXIV.  95-108. 

He  occupies  himself  mostly  with  the  accommodative  sense. 


224    THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Godet,  F.,  The  Life  of  Jesus  prior  to  his  ministry,  Think  VII. 
(1895)  390-404. 

A  brief  account,  not  conservative. 

Goulburn,  Edward  M.,  The  Gospel  of  the  Childhood.  A  prac- 
tical commentary  on  St.  Luke  ii.  41  to  the  end,  New  York, 
1873. 

An  excellent  sympathetic  exposition. 
Gray,  James,  A  sketch  of  the  life  of  J.  C.  from  His  Birth  to  the 
commencement  of  His  public  ministry  (in  dissertation  on 
the  concordance   between   the   priesthoods   of  J.    C.    and 
Melchisedeck,  123-158)  Philadelphia,  1845. 
A  good  exposition  following  the  Gospel  lines. 

Greg,  David,  The  Boy  Christ.  In  the  Treasury  of  Religious 
thought  (New  York)  XIII  (1896)  839-850. 

Mostly  concerned  with  Christ  amidst  the  Doctors. 

Gressmann,  Hugo,  Die  Weihnachts  —  Evangelium  auf  Ursprung 
und  Geschichte  untersucht,  Gottingen,  1914. 

A  negative  explanation  of  the  Gospel  account  of  Christ's  Birth. 
Hanna,  W.,  The  earlier  years  of  our  Lord's  Life  on  earth,  New 
York,  1870. 

A  fairly  conservative  presentment. 
Hansen,  T.,  Aus  d.  Jugendjahren  Jesu.     Transl.  into  Ger.  by 

Gleis,  1896. 
Haymo,  Bishop  of  Habberstat,  Homilia  XVII.  in  Dominica 
prima  post  Epiphaniam  M.PL  CXVIII.  120-126. 
A  good  sermon,  keeping  mostly  to  the  literal  sense. 

Hess,  Johan  Jakob,  Erste  Jugendgeschichte  Jesu,  Frankfurt, 
M.  1773.  Published  as  vol.  I.  in  work,  Geschichte  der  drey 
letzten  Lebensjahre  Jesu. 

Just  an  exposition  of  the  Gospel  text. 

Hilgenfeld,  Adolp,  Die  Geburts  —  und  Kindheitsgeschichte 
Jesu,  Luc.  i.  5-ii,  52,  ZWTh  XLIV  (1901)  177-235. 

A  good  critical  exposition  of  the  section,  yet  evidencing  a  negative  tend- 
ency in  many  points. 

Hillmann,  Johannes,  Die  Kindheitsgeschichte  Jesu  nach  Lucas, 

JprTh  XVII  (1891)  193-261. 

A  critical  treatment  from  the  negative  standpoint. 

Irons,  W.  J.,  The  first  recorded  words  of  Christ,  an  epiphany  to 

the  Blessed  Virgin  and  to  us.    Epiph  I.  in  Sermons  (1844). 

Isaac  of  Stella,  Homilia  (duo)  in  Dominica  infra  Oct.  Epi- 

phaniae.    M.PL  CXCIV.  1715-1719. 

Mostly  concerned  with  the  accommodative 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  225 

Kitto's  Mag.,  Vol.  XII.  351  ff.  and  XIII.  420  ff.    Birth  and 

Infancy  of  Christ. 
Knowles,  Archibald  C,  The  holy  Christ-Child,  a  devotional 

study  of  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  New  York,  1905. 
A  reverential  treatment  of  the  Gospel  account. 
Kohler,  Zu  den  kanonischen  Geburts  —  und  Jugendgeschichte 

Jesu  in  Schweiserische  theologische  Zeitschrift,  VI.  (1902) 

221  ff. 
Lagrange,  M.  J.,  Le  recit  de  l'Enfance  de  Jesus  dans  S.  Luc.  Rb 

IV  (1895)  160  ff. 

A  forcible  vindication  of  the  conservative  side. 

Machen,  J.  Gresham,  The  New  Testament  account  of  the  birth 
of  Jesus,  PrthR  III  (1905)  64  ff.  and  IV  (1906)  38  ff. 

,  The  origin  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  Luke,  PrthR  X 

91912)  212-277. 

Good  conservative  treatises,  the  latter  especially  critical  and  scholarly. 

Malan,  C,  L'Avenement,  dans  Jesus  Enfant,  de  la  conscience 
religieuse,  RThQr  V  (1896)  269-283. 

A  discussion  of  Christ's  religious  consciousness  in  development. 

Mayerus,  B.,  Disp.  de  Jesu  12. 

Michaelis,  J.  G.,  Exercitatio  philol.  theol.  de  Christo  ...  ad 
Luc.  ii.  49. 

A  very  conservative  treatise  of  this  passage,  mostly  dealing  with  the 
question  of  kv  rols. 

Monod,  Adolphe,  Enfance  de  Jesus,  ou  Feducation  chretienne, 
Paris,  1860. 

More  a  treatise  on  method. 

Morgen,  G.  Campbell,  The  hidden  Jesus  at  Nazareth,  New 
York,  1898. 

Short  and  popular,  dealing  mostly  with  term  from  12th  to  30th  year. 

Mulleady,  Berthold,  Devotion  to  the  Divine  Infant,  Am.  Ec- 
clesiastical, Rev.  lxii.  (1917)  593-606. 

The  author  deals  mostly  with  the  history  of  this  subject. 

Murray,  Potter,  The  legendary  story  of  Christ's  Childhood, 
NW  VIII  (1889)  648  ff. 

Contrasting  the  apocryphal  with  the  gospel  account. 
Nebe,  A.,  Die  Kindheitsgeschichte  unseres  Herrn  Jesu  Christi 
nach  Mattaus  und  Lukas  ausgelegt,  Stuttgart,  1893. 

A  good  explanatory  treatise  of  the  Gospel  accounts. 

Phelan,  William,  Christ  in  the  Temple  in  "Remains"  I.,  Lon- 
don, 1832. 

A  good  sermon  from  the  theological  standpoint. 


226     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

Prideaux,  Bp.,  De  Christi  Adolescentia  in  Lectiones;  consciones, 

II. 
Purves,  George  I.,  The  story  of  the  Birth,  BW  VIII  (1896) 

423  ff. 

Defending  the  historical  trustworthiness  of  narrative. 

Ramsay,  W.  M.,  Was  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem?    A  study  in  the 

credibility  of  St.  Luke,  London,  1898. 
,  Luke's  narrative  of  the  Birth  of  Jesus,  Exp.  ser.,  8  vol. 

IV.  (1912)  481-507. 

Excellent  vindication  of  St.  Luke's  historical  trustworthiness. 

Resch,  A.,  Das  Kindheits  Evangeliumnach  Lucas  und  Matthaeus, 
TU  Leipzig  (1897). 

An  unsuccessful  attempt  to  reconstruct  the  Hebrew  basis  of  the  accounts. 

Reuterdahl,  Observationes  criticae  in  priora  duo  Evang.  Lucae 

capita,  London,  1823. 
Reville,  Albert,  The  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus,  NW  1(1892) 

695-723. 

Sweeping  and  negative  in  results. 

Robertson,  A.  T.,  The  romance  of  the  census  in  Luke's  Gospel, 
Bib.  Rev.  V  (1920)  491  ff. 

A  summary  of  Ramsay's  arguments. 

Sanday,  William,  A  paper  on  the  origin  and  character  of  the 

first  two  chapters  of  St.  Luke. 
Schubert  von,  De  Infantiae  J.  C,  historiae  a  Matt,  et  Luc. 

exhibitae  authentia  et  indole,  Gripeswald  1815. 
Simeon,  C,  Christ's  early  habits,  in  "Works,"  XII.  268. 
Smith,  Thornley,  The  holy  Child  Jesus,  the  early  life  of  Christ 

viewed  in  connection  with  the  hist,  chronol.  and  archaeol. 

of  the  times,  London,  1868. 
Spitta,Friedrich,  Die  chronologischen  Notizen  und  die  Hymnen 

in  Luc.  i.  u.  2,  ZntlW  VII  (1908)  281-317. 
Negative  in  its  conclusions. 

Stapfer,  Edmond,  Jesus  Christ  avant  son  Ministere,  Paris,  1896. 
Eng.  transl.  by  S.  G.  Houghton,  New  York,  1900. 

Much  of  it  is  imaginative. 

Steinmetzer,  Franz,  Die  Geschichte  der  Geburt  und  Kindheit 

Christi  und  ihr  Verhaltnis  zur  babylonischen  Mythe,  Miin- 

ster,  I E.,  1910. 
A  good  treatment  of  this  question  from  the  conservative  point  of  view. 

Steinmeyer,  F.  L.,  Die  Geschichte  der  Geburt  des  Herrn  und 
seiner  ersten  Schritte  im  Leben,  in  Bezug  auf  die  neueste 
Kritik,  Berlin,  1873. 

A  good  complete  critical  treatise. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  227 

Sweet,  Louis  M.,  The  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus  Christ  accord- 
ing to  the  Gospel  Narrative,  Philadelphia,  1907. 

A  thorough  and  scholarly  book,  answering  all  objections  to  the  Virgin 
Birth. 

Usener,  H.,  Art.  Nativity,  E.  B.  III.  3340-3352. 

,  Geburt  und  Kindheit  Christi,  ZntlW  IV  (1903)   1-21. 

Both  radical  and  destructive. 

Van  Dyke,  Henry,  The   Childhood  of  Jesus,  Harpers  New 

Monthly  Mag.  LXXXVII.  (1893)  723-730. 
,  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ  with  20  illustrations  from 

paintings  of  great  masters,  New  York,  1905. 
Both  from  the  art  point  of  view. 

Volter,  Daniel,  Die  evangelischen  Erzahlungen  von  der  Geburt 
und  Kindheit  Jesu  kritisch  untersucht,  Strassburg,  1911. 
Negative  and  sweeping  in  its  conclusions. 

Wallace,  Lew,  The  Boyhood  of  Christ,  illustrated,  New  York, 
1888. 

Popular  treatment,  very  well  done. 
Wallis,  Robert  E.,  "About  My  Father's  business,"  A  plea  for 
a  neglected  translation,  Lk.  ii.  49,  Exp.  ser.  2,  vol.  VIII. 
17-23. 

Dealing  mostly  with  the  question  in  hand.     ' ' 
Wandel,  Die  Kindheitsgeschichte  Jesu  Christi  nach  Nosgen  und 
Nebe,  in  Neue  Kirchliche  Zeitschrift  V.   (1894)  286-315, 
449-465. 
Zenos,  A.  C,  The  Birth  and  Childhood  of  Jesus,  BW  VI  (1895) 
433-443. 

An  account  of  the  Gospel  narrative  to  the  flight  into  Egypt. 
Zimmermann,  Hellmtjth,  Evangelium  des  Lukas,  Kap.  I.  u.  2, 
ein  Versuch  der  Vermittlung  zwischen  Hilgenfeld  und   Har- 
nack.  StKr  LXXVE  (1903)  247-290. 
A  good  critical  treatment. 

See  also  the  excellent  list  in  S.  G.  Ayres':  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord,  an  English  bibliography  of  Christology.  New  York, 
1906,  pp.  124-128,  and  the  early  sections  of  the  Lives  of 
Christ,  Commentaries  on  first  two  chapters  of  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Luke,  etc. 


LIST    OF    ABBREVIATIONS    FOR    PERIODICALS    AND 
COLLECTIONS 

AmJTh American  Journal  of  Theology. 

AndR Andover  Review. 

AndthSB  . .  .Andover  Theological  Seminary  Bulletin. 
A-NF Ante-Nicene  Fathers. 

BSt Biblische  Studien. 

BW Biblical  World. 

BZ Biblische  Zeitschrift. 

BZSF Biblische  Zeit-  und  Streit-Fragen. 

Cath.  Enc .  .  Catholic  Encyclopedia. 

EB Encyclopedia  Bibliotheca. 

Exp Expositor. 

ExpT Expository  Times. 

HDB Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 

HDG Hastings'  Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels. 

HJ Hibbert  Journal. 

IthQ Irish  Theological  Quarterly. 

JewEnc ....  Jewish  Encyclopedia. 

JprTh Jahrbiicher  fiir  Protestantische  Theologie. 

Kit.EBL Kitto's  Encyclopedia  of  Biblical  Literature. 

M.PG  PL. . .  Migne,  Patrologia  Graeca,  Patrologia  Latina. 

NJdTh Neue  Jahrbiicher  fiir  Deutsche  Theologie. 

N.P-NF Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers. 

NW New  World. 

NYR New  York  Review. 

229 


230     THE  BOYHOOD  CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST 

OT-NTSt..  .Old  and  New  Testament  Student. 

PrthR Princeton  Theological  Review. 

Rb Revue  Biblique. 

RClfr Revue  du  Clerge  Frangais6. 

RHLr Revue  d'Histoire  et  de  Literature  Religieuse. 

RThQr Revue  de  Theologie  et  des  Questions  Religieuses. 

Sch-HEnc  .  .  Schaff-Herzog,  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge. 

SDB Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible. 

StKr Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken. 

Think The  Thinker. 

TU Texte  und  Untersuchungen. 

VDB Vigouroux's  Dictionnaire  de  la  Bible. 

ZntlW Zeitschrift  fur  Neutestamentliche  Wissenschaft. 

ZwTh Zeitschrift  ftir  Wissenschaftliche  Theologie* 


SCRIPTURAL  INDEX 


Genesis  — 
vi.  1-*.. 


OLD  TESTAMENT 

Tobias  — 
xiii.  4.. 


Leviticus  — 
xxiii.  4-22. 


Exodus  — 

iv.  22 

xiii.  8 

xxiii.  14,  17.. 
xxxiv.  23,  24. 

Numbers  — 
xxi.  29 


75 


81 
75 
75 
75 


81 


Deuteronomy  — 

i.  31 81 

vi.  20. 75 

viii.  5 81 

xxxii.  5,  6,  18,  19 81 

xiv.  1,2 81 

xvi.  16 75 

xxi.  18-21 144 


Judges  — 
xix.  11. 


155 


1  Kings  — 

i.  3,  4,  7,  21 76 

i.  22 68-71 

i.  28 68-71 

ii.  1-10 67 

ii.  26 67 

iii.  4-14 68 

iii.  10 68-91 

iii.  19 67 

2  Kings  — 

vii.  14 83 

vii.  18,  19,  25 91 


3  Kings  — 


viii.  13. 
ix.  3. 


99 


1  Paralipomenon  — 
xxix.  10 81 


2  Paralipomenon  — 

vii.  16 

xxxiv.  3 , 


99 


82 


Job  — 
i.  6. 
ii.  1 


83 

83 

ii.  9 155 

xxxviii.  7 83 


Psalms  — 

ii.  7 83,  114,171,172,  190 

xv.  (xvi.)  2 85 

xxii.  (xxiii.)  1 85 

xxviii.  (xxix.)  1 83 

xliv.  (xlv.)  5 155 

liii.  3 122 

lxxxviii.  (lxxxix.)  7 83 

Ixxxviii.  (lxxxix.)  27,  28 83 

lxxxi.  (lxxxii.)  1-6 83 

cii.  (ciii.)  13 85 

cvi.  (cvii.)  41 85 

lxviii.  (lxviii.)  5 85 

cxix.-cxxxiii 78 

cxii.-exviii 78 

cxxxi.  7,  8 78 

cxxxv 78 


Proverbs  - 
xxx.  17. 


144 


Wisdom  — 

ii.  18 82 

v.  5 82 

ii.  13,  16 82-85 

xiv.  3 82 


Ecclesiasticus  — 

xxiv.  1,  4 

Ii.  14 

Ii.  17 


.82-85 
..  85 
..   155 


Isaias  — 

i.  2,  4 81 

iii.  7 15 

vi.  9,  10 122 

xxx.  9 81 

xiii.  Iff 91 

xliii.  6 82 

Ixiii.  8,  16 82 

xlv.  11 81 

Hi.  15 122 


231 


INDEX 


Isaias  — 

lv.  4 162 

Ixii.  5 81 

liv.  6 81 

Jeremiah  — 

i.  6 16 

ii.  2 81 

iii.  1,4 81 

iii.  7 15 

iii.  14,  19,20,22 81 

xxxi.  9,  20 82 

xxxi.  32,34 82 

Ezechiel  — 

xvi.  8,  20 81 

xviii.  4 82 


Daniel  — 

v.  13 178 

viii.  23 152 

Osee  — 

ii.  2,  19,  20 81 

xi.  1 81,182 

xi.  3 81 

Malachi  — 

iii.  1 37 

i.  6 81 

ii.  10,  11 81 

2  Maccabees  — 

iv.  40 156 

vi.  18 156 

viii.  8 155 


OLD    TESTAMENT    APOCRYPHA 


3  Maccabees  — 

Psalms  of  Solomon  — 

v.  7 

.  . .  .     82 

xvii.  29 

83 

vi.  4,8 

....     82 

vii.  6 

....     83 

1  Enoch  — 

lxii.  11 

83 

cv.  2 

....83,114 

i.  23-25.... 

....     83 

4  Esdras  — 

vii.  28 

114 

Testament  of  Levi  — 

vii.  28,29 

......     83 

xviii.  6,  8 

....     83 

xiii.  32,37 

83 

xiv.  9 

83 

Testament  of  Juda  — 

Sibylline  Books  — 

xxiv.  2 

....     83 

v.  360,480,560 

83 

NEW  TESTAMENT 


Matthew  — 

i.-ii 62 

i.  1-17 182 

i.  18 146,182 

i.  20 146,  182 

i.  21 146,  182 

i.  23 146,  182 

i.  25 146 

ii.  2 182 

ii.  4-6 133 

ii.  11 14,26,182 

ii.  13-18 73,182 

ii.  19 182 

ii.  22 73,77 

ii.  23 73,74,  163 

iii.  14 173,  183 


Matthew  — 

iii.  15 173,  183 

iii.  16 173 

iii.  17 174,189 

iv.  1 175 

iv.  3 175,  189 

iv.  4 175,  176 

iv.  5 175,  176 

iv.  6 175,  189 

iv.  8 175,176 

iv.  13 163 

vi.  27 155 

vii.  28 126,133 

vii.  29 133 

ix.  14 138 

xi.  27 179 


INDEX 


Matthew  — 

xi.  25 122 

xii.  10 129 

xii.  23 124 

xii.  46-50 110 

xiii.  14. 122 

xiii.  15 122 

xiii.  19 121,  140 

xiii.  23 121 

xiii.  51 121 

xiii.  54 126,  133,  162 

xiv.  33 189 

xv.  10 122 

xv.  16 122 

xv.  26 , 87 

xvi.  12 122 

xvi.  16 189 

xvii.  5 174,  189 

xvii.  13 122 

xviii.  20 183 

xix.  1-12 99,163 

xix.  13 99 

xix.  23 127 

xix.  25 126 

xi.  27 183 

xxi.  33-46 178 

xxii.  33 126 

xxii.  35 129 

xxii.  41-46 178 

xxvii.  40 189 

xxvii.  43 189 

xxvii.  54 189 

xxvii.  63 79 

xxviii.  19 183 

xxviii.  20 83 

Mark  — 

i.  7 183 

i.  8 183 

i.  9 163 

i.  10 173 

i.  11 189 

i.  12 175 

i.  22 126,  133,  183 

i.  24 183 

i.  26 183 

i.  34 183 

i.  38 183 

ii.  12 124 

ii.  17 183 

ii.  19 184 

ii.  20 184 

iii.  12 189 

iii.  21 71,  124,  125,  184 

iii.  31-35 71,  110,  184 

iv.  12 122 

v.  7 189 


Mark  — 

v.  42 124 

vi.  1 163 

vi.  2 126,  133,  162 

vi.  3 162,  163 

vi.  51 125 

vi.  52 122,  140 

vii.  14 122,  140 

vii.  18 122 

vii.  27 87 

vii.  37 126,127 

viii.  17 122 

viii.  31 79 

viii.  35 184 

viii.  38 184 

ix.  6 174,  189 

ix.  11 133 

ix.  13-17 99 

ix.  18 126 

ix.  31 79 

ix.  36 183 

x.  26 126,  127 

x.  45 183 

xii.  1-12 178,  189 

xii.  33 122 

xii.  35-37 178 

xiii.  13 184 

xiii.  32 184 

xiv.  36 178 

xv.  39 189 

xvi.  15 184 

xvi.  16 184 

Luke  — 

i.  1-4 61 

i.  2,  3 181 

i.  7,  18 156 

i.  13 169 

i.  15  twice 169 

i.  32 169 

i.  35  twice 169 

i.  16-17 169 

i.  32 169 

i.  32,  33 169 

i.  35 169 

i.  26 74,  76,  108 

i.  29 64 

i.  30 153 

i.  31..... 146 

i.  32 146,  170,  189 

i.  34 62 

i.  35.  62,  93,  108,  146,  157,  170,  189 

i.  38 108 

i.  43 170 

i.  46-55 67 

i.  48 146 

i.  59 76 


234 


INDEX 


Luke  — 

i,  ii 60,  65,  'passim 

i.  64 159 

i.  66 67,  153 

i.  68 67,92 

i.  76 169 

i.  48,  49 169 

i.  41 169 

i.  79 67 

i.  80 67,  153 

ii.  4 74 

ii.  5 135 

ii.  7 64 

ii.  7ff 73 

ii.  9  twice 170 

ii.  11 26,  170 

ii.  14 170 

ii.  16 154 

ii.  18 147 

ii.  19 64,147 

ii.  21 73,  76 

ii.  22  ff 73 

ii.  25-33 147 

ii.  26 170 

ii.  29 92 

ii.  30,  32 170 

ii.  33 ..16,  17,  64 

ii.  34,  35 147 

ii.  36 76,  156 

ii.  38 170 

ii.  39 68,73,74,  163 

ii.  40 65,  67,  70,  94,  123,  147, 

151,  154,  156,  157 

ii.  41-51 185 

ii.  41 16, 17, 18,  69,  76, 135, 185 

ii.  42 68,69,76,77 

ii.  43. .  17, 18,  69,  79, 124, 135, 136, 

154 

ii.  44 69,  79,  136 

ii.  45 79 

ii.  46 69,  79,  124,  128ff. 

ii.  46^8 7-9,14 

ii.  47. . .  .68,  94,  103,  137,  153,  157 

ii.  47-48(a) 121ff. 

ii.  48 8,  16,  17, 18,  31,  54,  69, 

80,92 

ii.  48 104ff . 

ii.  48 137ff. 

ii.  49 passim 

ii.  50.  .5,  64,  69,  72,  94,  116,  121, 

139ff.,  149,  170 
ii.  51.. 64,   72,   80,   94,    108,    137, 

142ff.,  143,  163 

ii.  52.  .15,  65,  67,  123,  154ff„  158, 

161,  165,  171 

iii.  1 76 

iii.  3 170 


Luke  — 

iii.  15 171 

iii.  16 171 

iii.  21,22 171ff. 

iii.  22 115,174,189 

iii.  23ff 76,  175 

iii.  32 116 

iii.  38 175 

iv.  1 175 

iv.  2-13 98,  100,  115,  175,  176 

iv.  14 25,  175,  176 

iv.  15 175,  176 

iv.  16 75,162,163 

iv.  17-20 75 

iv.  22 162 

iv.  31-44 126,  133,  177 

iv.  39 74 

iv.  43 177,  183 

v.  20 178 

v.  21 177 

v.  22 177 

v.  24 178 

v.  34 178 

vi.  5 178 

vi.  9 131 

vi.  19 177 

vii.  14 177 

vii.  28 171 

vii.  35 151 

vii.  39 177 

vii.  40 177 

vii.  48 178 

viii.  10 122 

viii.  19-21 110 

viii.  24 177 

viii.  42 76 

viii.  54 177 

viii.  55 124 

x.  1 177 

x.  2 177 

x.  5 100 

x.  6 177 

x.  22 100 

x.  22,  44 177 

x.  24 178 

x.  26 178 

x.  35 174,  189 

x.  4(3 177 

x.  9,  17 177 

x.  14,  15 177 

x.  21,22 96,122,178,  179 

xi.  2 178 

xi.  27 Ill 

xi.  28 Ill 

xi.  31 151 

xi.  39 177 

xi.  49 151 


INDEX 


235 


Luke  — 

xii.  6,  9 178 

xii.  25 155 

xiii.  33 100 

xiv.  26 178 

xvi.  24,  25 80 

xvii.  25 100 

xviii.  19 179 

xviii.  34 122,  141 

xix.  3 155 

xix.  10 178 

xix.  45H16 99 

xx.  9-19 178 

xx.  20-17 133,  163 

xx.  40 129 

xx.  41-44 178 

xxi.  20-24 177 

xxi.  27 178 

xxii.  22 100 

xxii.  27 128 

xxii.  29 178 

xxii.  37 100 

xxii.  42 178 

xxii.  66 179 

xxii.  69 178,  179 

xxii.  70 179 

xxiv.  21 141 

xxiv.  22 124 

xxiv.  26 101 

xxiii.  34 178 

xxiv.  44 101 

xxiv.  45 122 

xxiii.  46 101,  178,  179 

xxiv.  49 178-180 

xxiv.  51 178 

xxiv.  52 178 


John  — 
1. 
12 
i.  14 


185 

192 

153,185,189 

18 189 

32 172,185 


33  173 

!  34 '.7.7.7.7. ......  173,  174,  189 

.45 163 

.46 163 

.47 185 

.49 189 

.51 185 

i.  3 148 

i.  4 110,186 

11 185ff. 

12ff 185 

13ff 186 

ii.  16 6,  186 

17 99 


John  — 

iii.  2 162 

iii.  16,  18 189 

iv.  25 162 

v.  17 85,  189 

v.  25 188 

vi.  38 35 

vi.  63 185 

vi.  70 189 

vii.  15,  16 162 

vii.  42 133 

vii.  52 163 

viii.  6,  8 162 

viii.  19,  20,  26 162 

viii.  27 139 

viii.  28 162 

viii.  41 87 

viii.  58 185 

ix.  21,  23 155 

ix.  35,  37 189 

x.  20 124 

x.  30 138,  189 

x.  34 83 

x.  36 189 

x.  38 189 

xi.  4 189 

xi.  27 189 

xi.  34 184 

xii.  40 122 

xiv.  22 59 

xvi.  16 139 

xvi.  28 185 

xvi.  30 129,  162 

xvii.  5,  24 185,  189 

xviii.  37 162 

xix.  7 189 

xix.  26 111,186 

xx.  28 185 

xxi.  17 162 

Acts  — 

i.  4 178-179 

i.  7 178-179 

i.  8 178-179 

i.  9 178 

ii.  7,  12 125 

ii.  22 181-197 

ii.  83 179 

ii.  86 179 

iii.  6,16 178 

iii.  15 179 

iii.  21 101 

iv.  10,30 178 

iv.  7 128 

vi.  8,  10 151 

vii.  22 161-181 

viii.  16,37, 190 


236 


INDEX 


Acts  — 

vii.  10 151 

vii.  10 151-161 

vii.  22 151-161 

vii.  25 122-140 

vii.  46 153 

viii.  9,  11 124 

viii.  13 125 

ix.  20 179-190 

ix.  21 125 

ix.  34 178 

x.  36,  42 179 

x.  38 163-178 

x.  45  i 124 

xii.  16 124 

xiii.  3 172 

xiii.  7 122 

xiii.  12 126 

xiii.  15 75 

xiii.  33 179 

xv.  21 75 

xvi.  18 178 

xvii.  3 101 

xvii.  14 136 

xxi.  17ff 64 

xxii.  3 161 

xxviii.  27.  29 122 

Romans  — 

i.  4 190 

i.  14,  22,  31 122 

iii.  11 122 

v.  10 190 

viii.  3 187-190 

viii.  32 187-190 

viii.  14-17 192 

viii.  15 178 

ix.  5 187 

x.  19 122 

xii.  7 98 

xiii.  12 154 

xv.  21 122 

1  Corinthians  — 

i.  9 190 

i.  19 122 

iii.  16 102 

viii.  6 187 

ix.  6 138 

ix.  24 102 

xv.  25 102 

2  Corinthians  — 

iv.  4 187 

v.  13 124-125 

viii.  9 187 

x.  12 122 


Galatians  — 

i.  14 154 

iv.  4 187,190,192 

iv.  6 178 

iv.  7 192 

v.  14 152-154 

Ephesians  — 

i.  23 152 

iii.  4 122 

iv.  13 155 

v.  17 122 

Philippians  — 

i.  12 155 

ii.  5 187 

ii.  8.. 162-187 

iv.  11 98 

Colossians  — 

i.  9 122 

i.  15 187 

ii.  2 122 

ii.  3 153-188 

ii.  9 153 

iv.  14 60 

1  Thessalonians  — 
i.  1 191 

1  Timothy  — 

i.  15 187 

iv.  15 98-155 

2  Timothy  — 

ii.  7 122 

ii.  16 154 

iii.  8 154 

iii.  13 154 

Philemon  — 

24 60 

Hebrews  — 

i.  5 172-190 

ii.  17 162 

iii.  5 190 

iii.  6 99-190 

iv.  15 162 

iv.  14 190 

v.  5 172-190 

v.  8 162-190 

vii.  3 190 

x.  29 190 

xi.  11 155 

James  — 
i.  17,  27 190 


INDEX 


237 


Jude  — 
i.  1 

190 

1  Peter  — 
i.  3, 17 

190 

2  Peter  — 
i.  17 

174.189 

1  John  — 
iii.  8 

190 

iv.  9,14,15 

v.  5,  7,  13 

190 

190 

Apocalypse  — 

iii.  5 190 

xix.  10 185 

xxii.  9 185 


NEW  TESTAMENT  APOCRYPHA 


Protevangelium  of  James  — 
xix 


19 


Childhood  Gospel  of  Ps.  Matthew  — 


Childhood  Gospel  of  Thomas  — 


iv.. 

vi. 

vii. 

viii. 

xiii. 


19 
20 
20 


20 
19 
20 
20 
21 
163 


Childhood  Gospel  of  Thomas  — 

xix 20,21,80 

xix 53,56,58 

Arabic  Gospel  of  Infancy  — 

i 20 

x 20 

l.-liii 20,21,22 

liii 57,80 

Apocryphal  Gospel   of  the 
Hebrews 171, 174 

Gospel  of  Ebionites 23 

Gospel  of  Marcosians 3-4 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Abbott,  41 

Abelard,  33 

Adamson,  46, 103 

Adeney,  47, 129 

Aelredus,  32, 139 

Agnoetae,  184 

Aiken,  67 

Albert  the  Great,  11,  33 

Alcuin,  17,  30 

Alexander  of  Hales,  32 

Alexander  the  Great,  66 

Alford,  47, 139 

Ambrose,  10,  11,  14,  15,  56,  106,  107, 
137,  143,  186 

Anderson,  41 

Angus,  84 

Annas,  77 

Anselm,  32 

Aoculus,  15 

Apocryphal :  Gospel  of  the  Childhood, 
18  ff.,  162;  Protevangelium  of  James, 
18-19;  Pseudo-Matthew,  Gospel  of, 
18,  19,  20;  Childhood  Gospel  of 
Thomas,  16, 19, 20,  21, 53, 56, 80, 163; 
Arabic  Gospel  of  the  Childhood,  19, 
20,  21,  22,  80 

Apocryphal  Gospels:  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews,  171,  174;  Gospel  of  the 
Ebionites,  23;  Gospel  of  the  Marco- 
sians,  3-4 

Archelaus,  73, 77 

Arendzen,  24 

Aretius,  36 

Aristotle,  32-84 

Artemon,  25 

Athanasius,  9,  14,  133 

Athenagoras,  152 

Augustine,  10,  14,  16,  17,  56,  58,  106, 
133,  138,  172 

Augustus,  Emperor,  77 

Augustus,  Octavius,  66 

Bacon,  40 

Baldensperger,  40 

Baljon,  44,  101 

Bar-Mizvah  institution,  76-77 

Bardenhewer,  4,5,9, 19, 24, 62, 63,74, 169 

Barnabas,  Ep.  of,  13 

Barnes,  47 

Barrows,  65 

Barth,  67, 94 


Bartmann,  48,  49,  109,  137,  141,  145, 

184,  185 
Basilides,  24 
Batiffol,  19 

Bauer,  Bruno,  43,  65,  107,  116 
Bede,  29,  31,  110,  153 
Beecher,  47,  131 
Beet,  47 
Bengel,  47 

Berg,  van  Eysinga,  66 
Bernadinus,  137 
Beryllus  of  Bostra,  26 
Besser,  47 
Beyschlag,  42, 95 
Beza,  36 
Billiot,  48 
Bisping,  48 
Blunt,  47,  131 
Boardman,  41 
Bonaventure,  34, 35, 137 
Bornemann,  23, 173 
Bossuet,  129 
Bourdaloue,  189 
Bousset,  40,  61,  86 
Bovon,  42 

Box,  48,  61,  62,  63,  64,  69, 141, 170, 182 
Box  and  Oesterley,  82 
Brandt,  23 
Brassac,  48-49 
Briggs,44,  63,  64,  102,  117 
Brough,  46,  74,  97,  164 
Brown,  42 
Bruce,  187, 190,  192 
Bruno,  32 
Buddha,  66,67 
Buddham,  65 
Burkitt,  56, 178 
"Business"  or  "house."   For  h>  toU 

.  .  .  ,  56,  57,  98,  99 

Cairns,  40 
Caius,  25 

Cajetan,  35,  36,  79,  131,  139 
Calovius,  34 

Calvin,  36,  118,  132,  136 
Campbell,  61,  123,  132 
Candlish,  83 
Canisius,  136, 141 
Capicelatro,  48 
Cannon,  84 
I  Carpenter,  41 
239 


240 


INDEX 


Carpocrates,  23 

Carr,  123, 154 

Cartwright,  35 

Catenae  Graecar,  29, 56, 58, 139 

Cerinthus,  23-25 

XApis,  meaning  of,  152-153 

Charles,  82 

Christ  Child:  a  God,  14;  miraculous 
power  of,  19,  20, 153 

Christ:  "Son  of  the  Law,"  76-77; 
whether  stayed  to  end  of  feast,  79; 
remained  behind,  79, 136;  among  the 
Doctors,  14,  21, 79, 80, 121ff. 

Christ,  Virgin  Birth,  5,  10,  18, 19,  61, 
103. 104, 135, 138,  147,  169,  170,  171, 
175, 189, 195:  at  Feast  of  Cana,  185; 
at  Nazareth  and  Capernaum,  177; 
perfect  from  the  beginning,  15,  16,  33, 
196;  no  growth  in  consciousness,  20, 
97, 112, 134, 135, 195, 196;  never  suf- 
fered ignorance,  15,  16,  32,  103,  104; 
whether  attended  school,  3,  20,  74, 
75,  161,  162,  163;  on  God's  Father- 
hood, 188ff.,  192ff.;  and  His  Mother, 
186;  and  the  "parents,"  110-111, 
149,  184;  and  Samuel,  67-68;  and 
John  the  Baptist,  153,169;  Gen- 
ealogy of,  175 

Christ's  Birth,  month  of,  70 

Christ's,  subjection  to  parents,  143;  first 
recorded  saying,  historicity  of,  70-72: 
uniqueness  of,  71,  72;  harmony  with 
later  ones,  110-111;  not  childish,  94; 
contrast  in,  92, 104ff . ;  reprehension  in, 
107ff.;  morality  of,  144ff.;  baptism, 
7,  23,  40,  43, 171ff.,  182, 185;  tempta- 
tion, 175-176;  second  scene  in  the 
Temple,  186;  Divinity,  7,8,9,12, 
20,  22, 196,  197;  preexistence,  13,  14, 
185;  real  Divine  Sonship,  96,  97,  178, 
188ff.,  195;  Divine  Sonship  in  Sub- 
apostolic  Fathers,  13ff.;  real  Divine 
Sonship  explains  morality  of  episode, 
145ff.;  Messianic  consciousness,  35, 
37,  43,  142,  173;  consciousness,  as 
modern  problem,  38, 47;  Kenosis,  162, 
188;  knowledge,  14,  15,  32, 33, 155ff., 
163,184;  grace,  157ff.;  use  of  "My 
Father,"  97, 193ff. 

Christ's  Infancy:  historicity  of  narra- 
tives, 6  Iff.;  Lucan  wording,  62; 
Semitic  colouring,  62-63;  circum- 
stances of,  73;  political  influences, 
73-74;  social  influences,  74-75;  reli- 
gious influences,  75-77;  in  St.  Luke, 
169;  in  St.  Matthew.  182 


Chrysostom,  14, 16, 17,  26,  99, 110,  133, 

148, 149, 186 
Clarke,  47, 49 
Clemens,  73 
Clement,   First  Epistle  of,  13:  Second 

Epistle,  155;  of  Alexandria,  14, 171 
Colarbasus,  24 
Conrady,  61-63 

Constantinople,  Second  Council  of,  26 
Constitutiones  Apostolicae,  143 
Coponius,  77 
Corderius,  4, 37 
Coughlan,  48, 160 
Cremer,  123 
Curci,  48 
Cyprian,  174 
Cyril,  of  Alexandria,  4,  8,  9, 12, 15, 16, 

24,  53,  56,  58,  97,  106,  133,  159:  of 

Jerusalem,  6, 9, 22 

Daab,  39 

Dalman,  48,  63,  69,  82,  83,  85,  86,  91, 

93,  94,  165,  170,  171,  174,  176,  178, 

179, 189, 192, 195, 196 
D'Arcy,  48, 106, 109, 174, 176, 194 
David,  66 
Davis,  45 
Deissmann,  155 
Denny,  42 

Set,  in  New  Testament,  100-101 
Dialogus  contra  Macedonianos,  9,  17, 

56, 58 
Dickenson,  42, 94 
Dickey,  40 
Didache,  the,  13 
Didon,  48 
Didymus  of  Alexandria,  6,  53,  56,  58, 

143 
Dill,  84 

Diognetus,  Epistle  to,  14 
Dionysius  the  Carthusian,  33 
Doderlein,  47, 98, 129 
Dollinger,  84 
Doren,  van,  47, 49, 132 
Dorner,  47 
Drum,  188 
Du  Bose,  48, 196 
Duchesne,  23 
Durand,  61, 63, 65, 73, 137 

Ebionites,  7, 9, 23, 25,  26,  61, 171 
Ebrard,  46, 134 

Edersheim,  44, 73,  74, 75, 76, 78,  79,  80, 
,  117, 123, 134, 143, 163, 187 
EKTrXrjaaonai,  in  the  New  Testament, 

127 
riXiKla,  meaning  of.  155 


INDEX 


241 


Elkesaites,  23 

Ellicott,  47, 80. 129 

e£l<rTijni,  in  the  New  Testament,  124- 

125 
Ephraim,  14 
Epiphanius,  6,  9,  16,  17,  22,  23,  26,  53, 

56, 58, 133, 171 
Erasmus,  11, 36, 107, 127, 132, 136, 137 
Estius,  137 
Eusebius,  25-26 
Euthymius  Zizabenus,  31 
Evans,  43 
Ewald,  46, 165 

Faber,  Stapulensis,  36, 139 

Fairbain,  41 

Fairweather,  86 

Farmer,   41,  74,  75,  76,  77,  78,  79,  127, 

133, 138, 141, 148, 151, 152, 156 
Farquahar,  163 
Farrar,  47, 70, 140 
Faustus  Socinus,  26 
Feine,  39 

Felder,  48, 49, 96, 118, 145,  170,  173 
Feldman,  74, 77 
Felton,  128 
Field,  140, 155 
Fillion,  48, 96, 118, 140 
Findlay,  18, 19 
Fleetwood,  47 
Foote,  47, 49 
Foxell,  46 
Frederich,  46 
Furrer,  43, 70, 97 

Galilee,  74 

Gamaliel,  80 

Garvie,  43 

Geikie,  46 

Gelpke,  43 

Geodfridus,  139 

Geometra,  4 

George,  64 

Gess  39 

Gigot,  48,  65, 101, 135, 139, 141, 175 

Gilbert,  43 

Gnostics,  19,  24,  25,  26 

God's  Fatherly  relation  to  man,  in  Old 
Testament,  81-82:  in  Apocryphal 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  83-84; 
to  special  individuals,  83;  among  the 
Greeks,  83-84;  in  New  Testament, 
188-190 

God,  Jewish  conception  of,  81ff.:  an- 
thropomorphisms of  Old  Testament 
changed,  85;    tendency  to  transcen- 


dental view  of,  86;  names  of,  86, 192; 

subject  to  the  Law,  86 
Godet,  42, 43, 64, 95, 134 
Gore,  43 
Goulburn,  47, 80 
Gratiani,  56 
Green,  87 
Gregory,     of    Nazianzus,     14-15:      of 

Nyssa,  15;  the  Great,  14,  110,  133, 

184 
Grotius,  36 
Guignebert,  66 
Guinebert,  40 

Haecker,  43 

Hahn,  47 

Hall,  Stanley,  46, 47, 93 

Hammond,  36 

Hamyln,  41 

Hanna,  46 

Harden,  64 

Harnack,   40,  61,  62,  63,  64,  118,  163, 

175, 178 
Harris,  151 
Hartmann,  45 
Hase,  Karl,  39, 66, 94 
Hastings,  48, 109 
Hausrath,  66, 80, 128 
Hawkins,  62 

Haymo  of  Halberstadt,  30,  137 
Heer,  175 
Henry,  Matt,  129 
Heretics,  the  early,  23, 172 
Herford,  86 

Hermas,  the  Pastor  of,  14 
Herod  the  Great,  73-74 
Hess,  43 
Hillel,  80 
Hillman,  62 
Hippolytus,  23, 25 
Hitchcock,  43, 134 
Hoffman,  18-19 
Hofmeister,  34, 131 
Hollmann,  75, 97 
Holy    Office,  condemned  propositions, 

165, 184 
Holtzmann,  H.,  39,  40,  60,  65,  92,  107, 

129, 184 
Holtzmann,  Oscar,  39,  41,  67,  70, 129 
Homer,  84 
Homes,  47,  49 
Hugo  de  S.  Caro,  35 
Hurter,  160 


Ignatius,  Martyr,  13, 62 
Irenaeus,  6 


242 


INDEX 


Irenaeus,  St.,  3,  4,  6,  13,  14,  19,  22,  23, 

24,  26, 56,  58, 61, 173, 190 
Isaac  of  Stella,  32 

Jacobus,  47, 49 

Jacquier,  60 

James,  St.,  71 

Jansenius,  Yprensis,  35, 37, 79, 140 

Jansens,  160 

Jeremias,  65,  66 

Jerome,  14, 15, 16, 17,  76, 131, 135, 143, 

152, 172, 174 
Jewish  Child:  names  for,  74;  schools  for, 

74-75;    training  left  to  parents,  75; 

religious  training,  75ff. 
John  Duns  Scotus,  33 
John  of  Damascus,  15 
John  Scotus  Erigena,  32 
Joseph,  only  in  the  place  of  a  Father, 

16, 17, 18, 104, 135 
Josephus,  66,  67,  73,  74, 154 
Joshua  ben  Gamala,  74 
Josias,  66 
Jtilicher,  60 

Justin  Martyr,  14,  62, 155, 163, 171 
Juvencus,  10, 12, 14, 56, 100 

Keil,  46, 102 

Keim,  41,67,70,94,95,129 

Kennedy,  74 

Kent,  39, 74, 129 

Kilpatrick,  41 

Knabenbauer,  48, 125. 132 

Knowling,  64 

Koran,  19 

Krenkel,  66 

Kuhl,  46 

idtpios,  applied  to  the  infant  Jesus,  170 

Lagarde,  63 

Lagrange,  48, 63, 80, 129, 137, 141 

Lange,  45, 94, 107 

aLapide,  Cornelius,  37, 79, 80, 118,  129, 

137, 141 
LeCanus,  48-49 

Leo  the  Great,  11, 53, 55, 56,  132 
Lepicier,  160 
Lepin,  48,  49, 173, 180 
Les&re,  48,  80 
Lester,  61 

Lightfoot,  John,  76,  79,  80, 128,  155 
Lobstein,  61, 65 

Loisy,  43,  60,  61, 62, 65, 71, 107, 116, 142 
Low,  77 

Lucas,  36, 79, 118, 129 
Lucianus,  26 
Ludolphus  of  Saxony,  34, 36 


Luke,  literary  dependence,  67,  68 
Luke,  the  author  of  the  Third  Gospel  as 

a  historian,  60,  61 
Luther,  34, 136 

Maas,  73, 80, 160 

MacDermott,  45 

MacEvilly,  48, 49 

Machen,  63,  69 

Mackintosh,  40, 41, 46 

Maclaren,  47, 105 

Maclean,  86 

MacRory,  60 

Magi,  14 

Mahaffy,  74 

Malan,  45 

Malchion,  25 

Maldonatus,  34,  36,  80, 129, 137, 141 

Mangenot,  48,  63 

Marcion,  24, 25,  26,  61 

Marcosians,  3, 4,  56,  58, 190 

IVT&rcus  24 

Martin,' 40,  61,  66,  68, 144 

Martineau,  40 

Martyr,  S.  Polycarpi,  152 

Mary,  Mother  of  God,  170:  handmaid 
of  the  dispensation,  8;  Luke's  author- 
ity for  Infancy  narrative,  64,71,72; 
Luke's  authority,  159 

Mary's,  preserving  all,  142;  Question, 
80,  105ff.,  138;  motherly  point  of 
view,  108;  words  and  action,  ex- 
planation of,  147ff. 

Mason,  103 

Matthews,  74 

Melanchthon,  34, 36, 131, 136 

Melchisedecian  heresy,  25 

Menochius,  129 

Merx,  40 

Messiah,  the,  83 

Meyer,  44,  62,  67,  70,  92, 107, 136, 139 

Michaelis,  J.  C,  34,  37 

Michel,  19-21 

Miller,  H.,  40, 66 

Milner,  64 

Moffatt,  63 

Monnier,  42, 43 

Montefiore,  41,  66, 71 

Moore,  84 

Moses,  66 

Moulton  and  Milligan,  155 

Muratorian  Canon,  61 

Natalis,  Alexander,  37, 80,  129, 141 
Nazareth,  74 
Neander,  41, 94 
Nebe,  42, 127 


INDEX 


243 


Nestle,  55, 58 
Neumann,  40,  65,  69 
Nevin,  47 

Nicholas  of  Lyra,  34 
Nicoll,  48, 49 
Nilus,  15, 107 
Nolloth,  46,  64 
Nosgen,  42,  95 

Oesterley,  86 

Olshausen,  45,  64, 129, 136 

Oosterzee,  45 

Ophites,  24 

Origen,  4,  5,  9, 12, 14, 16,  17,  53,  56,  58, 

100, 130, 131,  133,  136,  137,  142,  153, 

173,  190 
Owen,  47, 94, 196 

"Parents"  of  Christ,  16,  17,  18,  75, 
135ff.,  146ff.:  no  negligence  on  their 
part,  136;  surprised  at  scene,  137; 
non-understanding,  explanations  of, 
139ff.;   significance  of,  140, 142 

Pasch,  Ritual  of ,  at  time  of  Christ,  78: 
pilgrims  to,  78;  fervour  at,  78; 
Psalms  sung  at,  78 

Paterson,  43 

Patritius,  129 

Paul  of  Samosata,  25-26 

Pauli  Praedicatio,  174 

Paulus,  43, 116 

Paynter,  45 

Peabody,  41 

Pesch,  48 

Pfleiderer,  O.,  41, 60, 61, 65, 66, 71,  95 

Phelan,  47 

Philo,  75,  84 

Photius,  17, 30, 56, 58, 131, 132 

Picard,  48, 129 

Piscator,  36 

Plato,  84 

TrXrjpobfiepov,  meaning  of,  151-152 

Plutarch,  66 

Plummer,  18,47,  63,69,79,101,103,106, 
125, 129, 134,  141,  142,  143, 151, 155. 
162 

Plumptre,  45, 147 

Pohle-Preuss,  48, 157, 160 

Polus,  36, 79, 141 

Power,  54, 55, 59, 104, 127, 129, 139 

de  PressensS,  23,  24 

Preuschen,  123, 125 

Pricaeus,  98 

TrpoKoicTO),  meaning  of,  154, 155 

Pseudo-Augustinus,  17, 137 

Purves,  63,«64 


Quirinius,  P.  Sulpicius,  77 

Rabbis,  the,  80, 125, 126, 128, 129 

Ramsay,  vi,  44,  60,  61,  63,  65,  71, 77 

Reid,  18, 19 

Reinhard,  41, 194 

Renan,  64,  65, 144 

Resch,  63 

Reubelt,  46 

Reuss,  43 

Reville,  42,  65, 66,  94, 95, 129 

Rice,  140 

Riddle,  145 

Robertson,  A.  T.,  44, 60, 65,  111,  188 

Robinson,  46, 103 

Ryan,  140 

Ryle,  47 

Sadler,  47 

Salmeron,  36, 80 

Samuel,  66,  67,  68 

Sanday,  48,  63,  64,  86,   172,  174,  188, 

191,  192,  193 
Schaefer,  48, 99,  185 
Schaff,  47 
Schenkel,  39, 40,  66 
Schlatter,  43 

Schleiermacher,  41, 65,  69, 70, 129 
Schmeidel,  60, 61,  65, 66 
Schmidt,  H.,  43, 95, 101 
Schmidt,  Nat,  40, 70 
Schmidt,  P.  W.,  40, 43 
Scholia  Vetera  in  Lucam,  29 
Schools  at  time  of  Christ,  74ff. 
Schottgenius,  132 
Schulte,  15 

Schumacher,  96, 179, 188 
Schiirer,  40, 74,  75, 76,  80, 128 
Schweitzer,  39, 40 
Scott,  E.  F.,  44 
Seitz,  48 
Shammai,  80 
Shannahan,  48, 109 
Sheldon,  42, 97 
Sickenberger,  4,  5 
Simeon  Metaphrastes,    31,  56,  58,  79, 

107, 133, 136, 142 
Simon,  74 
Smith,  D.,  49 
Smith,  111,  163 
Sodon,  von,  58 
Solomon,  66 
Soltan,  61, 65 
Sophronius,  17 
Spaeth,  40 

Stalker,  47, 49, 181, 189, 195 
Stapfer,  39,  70,|163 


244 


INDEX 


Steinmetzer,  61, 67 

Steinmeyer,  46, 61, 70, 118, 141 

Stella,  35 

Stephens,  188 

Stewart,  48 

Stier,  46, 97, 101, 134 

Stoics,  Greek,  84 

Stokes,  183 

Strauss,  43,  65,  66,  116,  129,  136,  139, 

142 
Streatfeild,  110, 187, 193 
Suarez,  136, 138 
Suetonius,  66 

abv&ns,  in  the  New  Testament,  122 
arvvl-nni,  in  the  New  Testament,  121- 
Sweet,  46, 61,  63,  64, 71, 149 

122 
Sylveira,  35,  37, 145 
Symmachus,  155 

Talmud,  Baba  Bathra  21a,  74:  Aboth 
V  21,76;  Yoma  82A,  77;  Megilla 
21A,  128 

Targums,  85,  91 

Tasker,  19 

Temple:  part  in  which  Christ  was 
found,  79,  80;  episode,  silence  of 
other  Gospels  on,  181;  historicity  of, 
65ff. 

Terrien,  48, 141, 146 

Tertullian,  10,  24, 25, 56, 58,  62 

Theodore,  of  Mopsuesetia,  26 

Theodoret,  9, 13,.  15,  25,  26,  56,  58,  106, 
107, 133, 160 

Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  8,  9 

Theodotus,  of  Byzantium,  25 

Theodotus  the  banker,  25 

Theophylact,  31, 93, 137 

Thiriet,  48 

Tholuck,  70, 129 

Thomas,  St.,  4, 160, 162, 173 

Thomas  of  Aquin,  33 

Thomson,  44 

Tirinus,  37 

Teschendorf,  9, 17,  53 

Titus  of  Bostra,  5,  56, 93, 103 

Toletus,  35,  36 

Torrey,  63, 159 


Toy,  63, 87 

Tractatus  de  Rebaptismate,  174 

Trollope,  129 

Tyndal,  121 

Usener,  61, 113 

Valentinians,  4, 6, 24 
Vallings,  47 
Veuillott,  48 
Victor,  56 

Victorinus  of  Pettau,  24 
Vigilius,  15 
Vincent,  101, 123 
Virgin  Birth,  62, 65 
Vogels,  17,  58,  69, 137 
Volter,  41,  61, 65, 66, 71 
Von  Sodon,  41 
Vonier,  160, 162 

Wallis,  44, 108, 144 

Ward,  48, 160 

Warfield,  126, 127 

Weber,  39 

Weinel,  40, 62 

Weiss,  B.,  39, 55, 58,  63,  70,  139 

Weiss,  J.,  41,  61,  65,  95 

Wellhausen,  40, 61 

Wendt,  42, 70,  95, 164 

Wernle,  40, 61 

Westcott-Hort,  54, 55, 58 

Wetstein,  76, 128 

Whitefoord,  129 

Wicks,  82 

Wilkinson,  105, 108, 146, 147 

Wisdom,  word  in  the  New  Testament, 

151 
Wolf,  80 

Wordsworth,  J.,  57 
Wrede,  40 
Wright,  63, 64, 141 
WUnsche,  80 

Zacharias,  Chrysopolitanus,  31, 32 
Zahn,  63, 139 
Zeugma,  in  Luke,  159 
Zimmermann,  62, 69 


UNIVERSITAS  CATHOLICA  AMERICAE 
Washingtonii,  D.  C. 


S:  FACULTAS  THEOLOGICA. 


1921  —  1922 


No.  19 


THESES 


DEUS  LUX  MEA 


THESES 

QUAS 

AD  DOCTORIS  GRADUM 

IN 

SACRA  THEOLOGIA 

Apud  Universitatem  Catholicam  Americae 

CONSEQUENDUM 
PUBLICE  PROPUGNABIT 

PATRICIUS  IOSEPH  TEMPLE 

SACERDOS  ARCHIDKECESIS  NEO-EBORACENSIS 
SACRAE  THEOLOGIAE  LICENTIATUS 

HORA  IX  A.  M.  DIE  IX  IUNII  A.  D.  MCMXXII 


THESES 

i 

In  spite  of  linguistic  peculiarities  the  integrity  of  the  first  two 
chapters  of  the  Third  Gospel  must  be  maintained  on  the  strength 
of  the  evidence  drawn  from  the  manuscripts  and  from  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers. 

II 

From  such  indications  as  found  in  Luke  i.  29,  34,  35;  ii.  7,  19, 
33,  50,  51,  it  is  rightly  held  that  the  Virgin  Mother  herself  was 
St.  Luke's  final  authority  for  what  he  relates  in  the  Infancy  section. 

in 

From  the  supposed  analogous  accounts  told  of  Samuel,  Buddha, 
Alexander  the  Great  and  Josephus,  no  objection  can  be  raised 
against  the  historicity  of  the  episode  of  the  Boy  Christ  in  the 
Temple. 

IV 

It  is  not  because  Jesus  became  a  "Son  of  the  Law"  at  the  age 
of  twelve  that  He  made  His  memorable  visit  to  the  Temple  and 
we  have  recorded  what  transpired  there.  The  term  "Bar  Miz- 
wah"  does  not  occur  in  Jewish  writings  until  the  Middle  Ages, 
and  then  it  was  applied  to  one  who  had  reached  the  thirteenth 
year. 

V 

In  regard  to  the  question,  what  is  to  be  understood  by  iv  toi<; 
toO  in  Luke  ii.  49,  the  weight  of  authorities  and  both  Greek 
classic  usage  and  the  Greek  of  the  Papyri  are  in  favor  of  "house"; 
on  the  other  hand  the  context  and  the  Semitic  mode  of  speech 
are  on  the  side  of  "business." 

VI 

The  history  of  the  exegesis  of  Jesus'  first  recorded  saying 
creates  a  presumption  in  favor  of  the  interpretation  of  real  Divine 
Sonship. 

1 


2  THESES 

VII 

In  the  context  of  the  Virgin  Birth  and  in  the  light  of  the  whole 
New  Testament  setting,  the  words  "My  Father"  on  the  lips  of  the 
twelve-year-old  Saviour  must  be  understood  as  expressing  real 
Divine  Sonship. 

VIII 

Messiahship  is  included  in  Christ's  first  self-interpretation 
according  to  the  text  and  the  context. 

IX 

The  force  of  the  words  IJterovro,  i^exXaYYjaav  employed  in 
the  description  of  the  scene  of  the  Boy  Christ  among  the  Doctors 
tells  in  favor  of  the  view  that  the  "understanding"  displayed  on 
the  occasion  was  preternatural. 

X 

Neither  the  surprise  of  the  "parents"  at  seeing  their  "Son" 
among  the  Doctors,  nor  their  perplexity  at  His  earliest  recorded 
words,  are  irreconcilable  with  their  knowledge  of  the  Virgin 
Birth. 

XI 

The  great  crux  interpretum,  Luke  ii,  52,  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood in  the  sense  that  Jesus  increased  in  wisdom  and  grace  by 
real  internal  acquisition;  this  is  not  required  by  the  verb  xpo£xox- 
tsv  and  is  excluded  by  the  context. 

XII 

The  meaning  of  "age"  rather  than  "stature"  is  to  be  given  to 
Y)Xtx.(a  in  Luke  ii.  52,  being  more  in  harmony  with  the  verb  with 
which  it  is  coupled  and  in  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  Papyri. 

XIII 

Neither  education  or  any  other  natural  influence  whatsoever 
could  account  for  Christ's  great  knowledge  and  self -consciousness 
manifested  according  to  Luke  ii.  49. 


THESES  3 

XIV 

The  heavenly  voice  and  the  descent  of  the  Dove  during  Jesus' 
baptism  have  not  the  significance  ascribed  them  by  modern 
critics  who  take  them  to  represent  merely  a  crisis  in  the  inner  life 
of  Our  Lord.  Rather  those  incidents  were  an  external  confirma. 
tion  of  Christ's  Messiahship  and  Divine  Sonship  intended  not 
for  Himself  but  for  the  Baptist  and  the  bystanders. 

XV 

In  opposition  to  the  false  theories  advanced  on  the  matter, 
it  is  to  be  maintained  that  the  temptation  of  Christ  was  a  real 
occurrence  in  which  a  personal  tempter  appearing  in  bodily  form 
made  outward  sug  gestions  to  Jesus. 

XVI 

Mark  xiii.  32  can  be  explained  in  the  sense  that  Christ  did  not 
know  the  last  day  for  the  purpose  of  revealing  it;  no  deficiency 
of  knowledge  is,  therefore,  announced  in  this  verse. 

XVII 

In  the  parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen  (Matthew  xxi. 
33-46;  Mark  xii.  1-12;  Luke  xx.  9-19)  sharply  distinguishing 
from  the  whole  series  of  servants  the  only  beloved  son  as  the  sole 
heir,  Christ  indirectly  states  that  He  is  the  real  Son  of  God. 

XVIII 

In  the  use  of  the  appellation,  Father,  for  God,  Christ  con- 
formed to  the  Jewish  religious  custom  of  avoidance  of  the  name 
of  God;  at  the  same  time  He  preserved  a  peculiar  position  of  His 
own,  by  the  marked  preference  for  this  title  and  especially  by  the 
content  He  gave  it,  —  teaching  a  three-fold  grade  of  God's  Father- 
hood. 

XIX 

The  several  words  of  Our  Lord  with  reference  to  His  Blessed 
Mother  (Luke  ii.  49;  Mark  iii.  33-35;  Luke  xi.  28;  John  ii.  4; 
xix.  26)  do  not  contain  anything  derogatory  to  the  Blessed  Virgin 
or  inconsistent  with  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  her  position  and  of 
the  veneration  due  her. 


4  THESES 

XX 

The  two-source  theory  so  widely  accepted  among  modern 
scholars  does  not  offer  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  Synoptic 
problem,  i.e.  the  resemblance  and  differences  existing  in  the  first 
three  Gospels  (Bib.  Comm.  26  iunii  1921). 

XXI 

A  priori  considered,  the  application  of  the  sound  principles 
of  historical  criticism  to  the  Bible  should  redound  to  the  vindi- 
cation of  the  Church  and  her  doctrine  of  inspiration;  and  as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  now  so-called  Higher  Criticism  has  been  used 
by  Origen,  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  Eusebius,  Jerome,  with 
valuable  results,  positive  as  well  as  negative. 

XXII 

While  the  legendary  accounts  of  the  origin  of  the  Septuagint 
are  to  be  rejected,  there  can  be  no  doubt  (1)  that  the  Septuagint 
was  begun  about  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  before  Christ, 
(2)  that  it  is  the  work  of  many  authors,  (3)  that  it  was  used  as  an 
authentic  text  of  the  Old  Testament. 

XXIII 

While  the  Syriac  Peshitto  of  the  Old  Testament  was  probably 
the  work  of  Judaeo-Christians,  the  Peshitto  of  the  New  Testament 
is  a  Gospel  revision  made  by  Rabbula,  bishop  of  Edessa  (411-435) 
as  a  substitute  for  the  Diatesseron. 

XXIV 

The  chief  requisite  for  the  proper  interpretation  of  a  given 
passage  of  Sacred  Scripture  is  the  consideration  of  the  context  and 
the  spirit  of  the  whole  book  in  which  that  passage  is  found. 

XXV 

The  similarity  between  the  biblical  narrative  of  the  creation 
and  that  found  in  Babylonian  sources  is  to  be  explained,  not  on 
the  theory  that  the  former  is  dependent  on  the  latter,  but  rather 
as  an  indication  of  a  common  tradition  coming  from  a  more  re- 
mote source. 


THESES  5 

XXVI 

A  comparison  of  the  Mosaic  legislation  and  the  Code  of  Ham- 
murabbi  on  the  punishment  of  thieves,  runaway  slaves  and  those 
who  harbor  them,  as  well  as  on  the  innocent  children  of  culprits, 
clearly  shows  that  while  a  superior  economic  stage  is  reflected  in 
the  Code,  the  laws  of  Moses  evidence  a  far  higher  stage  of  humane 
and  religious  thought. 

XXVII 

The  Hebrew  #  seems  to  be  a  particle  corresponding  in  its  ety- 
mology and  usage  to  the  Assyrian  sa  and  not  an  abbreviated  form 
of  ">?!$.  The  Assyrian  and  especially  the  Babylonian  captivity 
together  with  the  influence  of  an  Aramaic  particle  *|  of  similar 
meaning  seem  to  have  been  instrumental  in  promoting  its  general 
use  by  Hebrew  writers;  so  that  its  frequent  and  flexible  employ- 
ment in  Ecclesiastes  is  rightly  considered  one  of  the  indications 
that  the  Hebrew  of  this  book  is  to  be  dated  after  the  Babylonian 
captivity. 

XXVIII 

The  differences  between  the  Hebrew  decree  of  Cyrus  (1  Esd.  i. 
2-4)  and  the  Aramaic  one  1  Esd.  vi.  3-5)  are  best  explained  by  the 
supposition  that  there  were  two  distinct  decrees  with  distinct 
purposes  and  destinations. 

XXIX 

Judging  from  the  canonical  and  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  there  was  a  development  in  the  Jewish  conception  of 
God's  fatherly  relation  to  man.  From  professing  God's  fatherly 
relation  to  the  nation  as  a  whole,  the  Jews  came  to  acknowledge 
His  fatherly  relation  to  the  individual. 

XXX 

The  many  and  striking  resemblances  between  St.  Luke's  In- 
fancy section  (Luke  i.-  ii.)  and  the  childhood  account  of  Samuel 
in  the  early  chapters  of  the  first  book  of  Kings,  are  to  be  explained 
by  a  merely  literary  dependence  in  no  way  militating  against  the 
historicity  of  the  Lucan  narrative. 


6  THESES 

XXXI 

The  objections  raised  by  Howison,1  Wilson,2  and  other  scholars, 
first,  against  the  possibility  of  man's  receiving  with  certainty  a 
divine  positive  communication,  and  secondly,  against  the  ability 
of  any  body  of  men  to  transmit  unchanged  through  succeeding 
generations  such  a  revelation  once  received,  do  not  avail  to  dis- 
prove the  fact  of  Christian  revelation,  viewed  as  a  positive  ob- 
jective communication  from  God. 

XXXII 

In  the  pure  Greek  diction  of  the  Third  Gospel,  and  in  its  skilful 
use  of  medical  terms,  we  find  strong  evidence  in  favor  of  the  voice 
of  tradition  that  it  was  composed  by  St.  Luke,  the  Greek  physician. 

XXXIII 

While  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  especially  emphasized  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  the  same  truth  is  substantially  set  forth  in  the 
Synoptics. 

XXXIV 

The  attempts  of  modern  radical  critics  to  account  for  the 
belief  of  the  primitive  Church  in  the  bodily  resurrection  of  Jesus 
apart  from  its  objective  reality,  all  fail  to  do  justice  to  the  re- 
corded evidence. 

XXXV 

There  is  abundant  evidence  in  the  New  Testament  to  show 
that  an  ever  living  infallible  magisterium  is  an  essential  feature 
of  the  true  Church  of  Christ. 

XXXVI 

A  hasty  survey  of  the  history  of  heresy  reveals  the  fact  that 
the  Divinity  of  Christ  has  always  been  the  central  point  of  attack 
on  the  part  of  the  heterodox. 

1  The  Limits  of  Evolution,  New  York,  1905;  pp.  232  ff. 

2  The  Idea  of  Revelation,  Essay  VI  in  Cambridge  Theological  Essays,  New 
York,  1905. 


THESES  7 

XXXVII 

The  christ  ological  errors  and  heresies  of  the  first  three  Christian 
centuries  were  not  less  drastic  and  sweeping  in  their  nature  than 
were  those  of  the  centuries  immediately  following;  indeed  most 
of  the  latter  were  only  modified  forms  of  the  former. 

XXXVIII 

The  baneful  influence  of  Theodotus  the  Tanner  against  the 
Divinity  of  Christ  is  reflected  in  Artemon,  Paul  of  Samosata  and 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia. 

XXXIX 

Modern  rationalistic  scholars,  and  certain  heretics  of  the  early 
centuries,  agree  in  regarding  the  event  of  Christ's  baptism  as  a 
crisis  of  great  christological  importance;  they  fundamentally 
disagree  in  regard  to  the  precise  nature  of  the  crisis. 

XL 

While  it  is  true  that  the  Homilies  of  Aphraates,  though  post- 

Nicene,  do  not  reflect  Nicene  controversies;  it  is  not  true,  as  has 

been  contended,  that  his  so-called  "Creed,"  in  his  Homily  on 

Faith  (Horn.  I.  19),  is  co-extensive  with  his  Creed  or  the  Creed 

of  the  Eastern  Church. 

XLI 

Reiicienda  omnino  est  opinio  quae  statuit:  Conciliari  nequit 
sensus  naturalis  textuum  evangelicorum  cum  eo  quod  nostri 
theologi  docent  de  conscientia  et  scientia  infallibili  Jesu  Christi. 
Merito  proinde  hanc  opinionem  reprobavit  Pius  Decimus  in  decreto 
Lamentabili,  3  iulii,  1907  (prop.  XXXII). 

XLII 

Firmiter  tenedum  est  Christum  ab  initio  semper  habuisse 
conscientiam  suae  Divinitatis  suaeque  dignitatis  messianicae.1 

XLIII 

In  Christo  homine  triplex  erat  scientia,  nempe  visio  beatifica, 
scientia  infusa,  scientiaque  acquisita. 

1  Cf .  prop.  XXXV.  damn,  in  deer.  Lammentabili,  3  iulii  1907. 


THESES 


XLIV 


In  sola  scientia  experimental!  Christi  verus  progressus  admitti 

potest. 

XLV 

Christ  us  nihil  ab  homine  didicit.1 

XLVI 

Contra  Anabaptistas  et  Baptistas  contendendum  est  validum 
esse  baptismum  sive  per  immersionem  sive  infusionem  sive  per 
aspersionem  collatum. 

XLVII 

Sola  consecratio  ad  essentiam,  communio  vero  ad  integritatem 
et  perfectionem  sacrificii  Eucharistiae  pertinere  videtur. 

XLVIII 

Quidquid  a  civili  auctoritate  de  usu  vini  ex  uvis  fermentati 
statuatur,  haec  materia  sola,  nempe  vinum  fermentatum,  in  sacro 
Eucharistiae  sacrificio  licite  adhiberi  potest. 

XLIX 

Christus  Ecclesiae  contulit  potestatem  remittendi  et  retinendi 
omnia  peccata  post  baptismum  commissa  et  quidem  actu  iudiciali. 

L 

Quaedam  sunt  causae  ab  integritate  confessionis  excusantes. 

LI 

Filii  tenentur  per  se  sub  gravi  obedire  parentibus  in  omnibus 
quae  honesta  et  licita  sunt;  de  vocatione  autem  clericali  aut 
religiosa  eorum  consensum  petere  sufficit,  quern  si  negent,  obligatio 
obedientiae  non  coget. 

LII 

Bellum  offensivum  si  adsint  debitae  conditiones  ex  natura 
licit um  est.  Conditiones  haec  potissimum  sunt  tres:  Auctoritas 
publica,  causa  iusta,  intentio  recta. 

*St.  Thomas,  Summa  Theologica,  pars  III,  q.  XII.,  art.  3. 


THESES  9 

LIII 

His  in  regionibus  opinio  quae  tenet  furtum  septem  dollarorum 
constituere  materiam  absolute  gravem  peccati  contra  iustitiam 
tuto  defendi  potest. 

LIV 

Heri  seu  domini  tenentur  adulto  operario  illam  mercedem 
solvere  quae  ad  familiam  alendam  necessaria  est. 

LV 

Operistitia  quibus  plures  operarii  simul  ex  condicto  a  labore 
cessant,  licita  sunt  dummodo  quaedam  conditiones  verificentur. 
Difficile  tamen  est  iustificare  quoslibet  casus  in  quibus  cooperantes 
operarii  vi  usi  sunt  in  excludendis  iis  operariis  quos  domini  aliunde 
invitaverunt. 

LVI 

De  iis  quibus  competit  nonnulla  crimina  graviora  reservare 
(Can.  893-896). 

LVII 

De  reservationibus  ab  ordinario  statutis  earumque  cessatione 
in  quibusdam  casibus  (Can.  897-900). 

LVIII 

De  impedimento  disparitatis  cult  us  (Can.  1070-1071). 

LIX 

De  privilegio  Paulino  eiusque  conditionibus  (Can.  1120-1127). 

LX 

De  obligatione  parochi  nomina  baptizati,  confirmati,  necnon 
in  matrimonium  conjunctorum  in  praescriptis  libris  adnotandi 
(Can.  777,  798,  1103). 


VITA 

Patrick  Joseph  Temple,  son  of  Patrick  Temple  and  Mary 
O'Neill,  was  born  at  Shannon  Harbour,  Offaly,  Ireland,  on  June 
1st,  1889.  He  received  his  primary  education  in  the  National 
Schools  of  Shannon  Harbour  and  the  neighboring  town,  Banagher. 
On  September  1st,  1903,  he  entered  St.  Mel's  College,  Longford, 
the  diocesan  preparatory  seminary,  and  was  graduated  in  1908. 
After  a  course  of  two  years  of  philosophy  pursued  at  All  Hallows' 
College,  Dublin,  he  began  his  theological  studies  in  St.  Joseph's 
Seminary,  Dunwoodie,  New  York,  where  he  was  ordained  Septem- 
ber 20th,  1913.  For  the  next  three  years  he  pursued  a  post-graduate 
course  in  the  School  of  Sacred  Sciences  at  the  Catholic  University 
of  America,  specializing  in  the  study  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  ob- 
taining the  degrees  of  S.T.B.  and  S.T.L.  In  1916  he  was  appointed 
assistant  to  the  pastor  of  St.  Bernard's  Church,  New  York  City, 
and  after  two  years  of  service  was  transferred  to  the  parish  of  the 
Holy  Family,  New  Rochelle,  New  York,  where  he  still  holds  the 
office  of  assistant. 


li 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 

STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


7  1927 


497198 

TTszs 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


